Regularisation cannot be denied for a service break caused by a court-stayed termination.

Basappa Vithal Madar was appointed as a temporary Class IV employee on daily wages on 5 April 1984.

After his termination in December 1990, the High Court stayed the termination order in proceedings to which he was a party.

Although he sought to resume work, he was permitted to do so only from 1 August 1996.

He sought regularisation under the Government Order dated 3 November 1994 and related service benefits; his claim was rejected on the ground that he had not completed ten years’ continuous service.

The Single Judge allowed his petition, directing the authorities to use 5 April 1984 as the starting date for computing ten years and to consider regularisation and consequential benefits.

The Board appealed.

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to consideration for regularisation and service benefits on the basis of parity with a similarly situated employee who had received regularisation.

2. Whether the period during which the termination order was stayed could be relied on by the authorities as a break in service, where the respondent was not permitted to resume duty despite the interim order.

The appeal was brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

The Court applied the principle that an employee should not be treated differently from similarly situated employees without justification.

It also considered the Government Order dated 3 November 1994, which the respondent invoked as the basis for regularisation of eligible daily-wage employees, and the Supreme Court decisions in Dharwad PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees Association v. State of Karnataka and State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which were raised in the proceedings.

The appeal was resolved on parity and the effect of the stay order; the Court did not undertake a separate exposition of those precedents.

The Court noted that S.S. Siddapur, who was similarly situated, was also a party to the earlier writ proceedings and had obtained regularisation after his termination was stayed.

The respondent was likewise a party to those proceedings, and the authorities had not disputed the asserted similarity.

Further, because the termination order had been stayed and the respondent was not allowed to report for duty, the authorities could not rely on the resulting interruption to deny him consideration for the benefit while extending it to a comparable employee.

The Court therefore found no error in the Single Judge’s direction.

The writ appeal was rejected.