Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court in Anandu & ANR v. The Principal Secretary & Others (WRIT PETITION No.100556 OF 2024) directed the State government to regularise the services of two workmen who had served as daily wage employees for 39 and 32 years, respectively. The petitioners, Anandu and Ishwar, had worked for the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and approached the court after repeated representations to the government yielded no relief. Justice M Nagaprasanna, delivering the judgment, observed that failure to regularise them would amount to exploitation of human labour and issued a mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their services from the dates they completed ten years of service.

Arguments:

The petitioners contended that despite dedicating their entire careers to the service of the State, they remained as daily wagers, deprived of the benefits accorded to permanent employees. They argued that they fulfilled all the conditions for regularisation as per the Supreme Court judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), and the State’s failure to regularise their services violated Article 14 of the Constitution. They further pointed out that numerous similarly situated daily wage workers had been regularised, making the denial of their claim arbitrary and discriminatory. The State government, represented by its counsel, opposed the petition, arguing that mere continuation of employment for an extended period did not automatically entitle daily wage employees to regularisation. It contended that the petitioners had already been brought under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012, which provided sufficient benefits and, therefore, no further claim for regularisation could be entertained.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court rejected the State’s argument and strongly condemned the exploitation of human labour by keeping employees on daily wages for decades. It noted that both petitioners had served in sanctioned vacant posts and met all the criteria for regularisation. The bench held that the denial of regularisation to these petitioners while granting it to others constituted a violation of Article 14 and amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power. Referring to the Umadevi judgment and other Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasised that regularisation should be considered for employees engaged for long durations in government service. The court further observed that the State’s conduct amounted to a ‘pick and choose’ policy, which was impermissible in law. It criticised the State for creating unnecessary litigation by refusing to consider genuine cases for regularisation and thereby forcing employees into legal battles. Accordingly, the court directed the government to regularise the petitioners’ services from the dates they completed ten years of service and ensure that they received salaries equivalent to permanent employees from that date onwards. However, it clarified that the petitioners would not be entitled to arrears of salary but would be eligible for all consequential benefits arising from such regularisation. The High Court’s decision reinforces the principle that employees who have served for long years in government service should not be subjected to continued uncertainty regarding their employment status and should be granted the dignity of regular employment.