In a significant decision, the Karnataka High Court has held that a daily wage employee, who has continuously served for more than ten years in a sanctioned post, cannot be denied the benefit of regularization merely on the grounds of procedural irregularities or delay. The division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar delivered this ruling while allowing the writ petition filed by P. Junjappa, a Forest Watcher with over three decades of service.
The case arose after P. Junjappa, who had worked in the Forest Department for around thirty years in the capacity of Forest Watcher and Driver, was denied regularization through endorsements issued on August 29, 2016. Despite discharging his duties similar to those assigned to regular employees, his claim was rejected by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) in its order dated July 31, 2019. The Tribunal had dismissed the application citing lack of documentary proof of continuous service, delay in seeking regularization, and the absence of formal appointment orders, while also referring to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006).
Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the KSAT’s order and seeking regularization along with all consequential monetary benefits. His counsel argued that Junjappa's long, uninterrupted service satisfied the conditions for regularization under various government circulars and judicial precedents, including State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari and Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab. It was further highlighted that the petitioner had performed duties on par with regular employees, making the denial of regularization arbitrary and unjustified.
On the other hand, the State government contended that the petitioner was not appointed through the prescribed recruitment process and that his engagement was not against a sanctioned post. They further argued that as per the ruling in Umadevi, there was no automatic right to regularization for daily wage employees, especially where recruitment rules were not followed.
Addressing these arguments, the High Court observed that the KSAT had rigidly applied the Umadevi ruling without considering subsequent clarifications laid down by the Supreme Court in the M.L. Kesari case. The bench noted that employees who had completed over ten years of continuous service in sanctioned posts before the pronouncement of Umadevi were indeed entitled to regularization, and procedural delays by the authorities should not deprive them of this benefit.
The Court further emphasized that the petitioner had furnished sufficient proof, including salary slips and service certificates, establishing his continuous and uninterrupted service. It was held that the absence of a formal appointment order should not override the substantial evidence proving his employment. The Court also highlighted that the State had failed to counter the petitioner’s claim of being similarly situated with other regularized employees, thereby violating the principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Quoting from the Supreme Court's judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India, the Court observed:
"Where appointments were not illegal but possibly irregular, and where employees had served continuously, performed tasks required on a regular basis for a considerable period, then temporary employment requires fair regularization."
Additionally, the Court relied on Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, observing that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization to an employee who has performed the same duties as regular staff for an extended period.
The bench also criticized the State for its discriminatory approach and reliance on procedural technicalities, pointing out that the petitioner’s case was one of longstanding, continuous service that deserved fair treatment. The Court underscored that denying regularization solely due to procedural lapses amounted to an unjust violation of constitutional rights.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Issues Notice to Chief Minister Siddaramiah and Others in MUDA Scam Probe Appeal
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the KSAT’s order and directed the State to regularize Junjappa’s services in accordance with the legal principles laid down in the M.L. Kesari judgment. The Court also ordered the government to provide all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of pay, under the doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work." The process of regularization is to be completed within three months from the receipt of the certified order.
Case Name : P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests & Ors
Case No. : WP 6238/2020
Counsel for the Petitioner : Ranganatha S. Jois, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents : Vikas Rojipura, AGA
