T R ANANDA RAO v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 3.4.2014 vide Annexure-D. The grievance of the petitioners is that the regularization of their services has been turned down with reference to Karnataka State Daily Wage Welfare Rules, 2012 and other Government Notification/letter. Petitioners stated to have been appointed as daily wage worker with respondent No.2 in the year between 1986 to 1992. While passing the order dated 3.4.2014, the 2nd respondent has not taken note of the decision passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs Umadevi & Ors.(3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The decision of the Constitutional Bench provides for one time regularization with reference to criteria mentioned in the decision of Umadevi. Prima facie, it is evident that petitioners have fulfilled the conditions relating to ten years of service as on 10.4.2006, the date on which, the decision of Umadevi has been rendered. The later decision in the case of Union of India V/s. Central Administrative Tribunal reported in 2019 4 SCC 290 held that non-regularizing senior persons service and regularizing of junior persons amounts to discrimination. Paragraphs 18 to 20 are reproduced as under: It is of relevance to consider the directions rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi.P K Balasubramanyan, J., speaking for the Court, held thus: "53...In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

19. The directions issued in Uma Devi have been considered by subsequent benches of this Court. In State of Karnataka v. M L Kesari, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the "one-time measure" prescribed in Uma Devi must be considered as concluded only when all employees who were entitled for regularisation under Uma Devi, had been considered. Justice R V Raveendran, who wrote the opinion of the Court, held: (M.L.Kesari, SCC PP.250-51, paras 9-11) "9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.

10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10- 4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure. "20. The judgment of this Court in Uma Devi does not preclude the claims of employees who seek regularization after the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some employees, provided that the said employees have completed the years of service as mandated by Uma Devi. The ruling casts an obligation on the State and its instrumentalities to grant a fair opportunity of regularization to all such employees which are entitled according to the mandate under Uma Devi and ensure that the benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent regularization of employees who have completed the requisite period of service is to be considered as a continuation of the one-time exercise. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, Annexure-D dated 3.4.2014 is aside. The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and pass appropriate order and communicate the decision to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. In view of the above, writ petitions stand disposed Sd/- JUDGE