Two Contract Health Assistants’ Absorption Claims Remain Undecided as Karnataka HC Orders State Reconsideration Within 8 Weeks

Respondents, who worked on a contract basis as Junior Health Assistants (Female) under the IPP-VIII project, sought regularisation or absorption on parity with employees absorbed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Absorption of India Population Project-VIII Employees in the Bangalore City Corporation Services) (Special) Rules, 2001.

Their representation was rejected on 27 May 2020.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal allowed their applications, quashed the rejection and directed their retrospective absorption with consequential benefits.

The State challenged that direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that courts cannot issue a positive writ of mandamus directing the absorption or regularisation of temporary, casual or daily-wage employees.

The respondents’ claimed parity arose from the 2001 Special Rules, but the High Court’s stated basis for modifying the Tribunal’s order was the limit on judicial directions identified in Uma Devi.

The Tribunal had directed the State to absorb the respondents retrospectively on parity with employees covered by the 2001 Rules and to grant consequential benefits.

The High Court held that this positive direction was contrary to Uma Devi, under which the Tribunal could, at most, direct reconsideration of the respondents’ regularisation case.

It therefore modified the relief rather than affirming the direction to absorb.

The State was directed to reconsider the respondents’ case regarding absorption within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the High Court’s order.