Introduction:

In the case of P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests & Ors (WP 6238/2020), the Karnataka High Court addressed the issue of regularising a daily wage employee who had served the Forest Department for over three decades. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Ranganatha S. Jois, challenged the denial of regularisation by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), which had dismissed his claim citing lack of documentary evidence and procedural delays. The High Court, with Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar presiding, examined the arguments from both sides to determine the legitimacy of the petitioner’s claim for regularisation.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Perspective:

The petitioner argued that his continuous service for over thirty years in a sanctioned post as a Forest Watcher/Driver entitled him to regularisation. He contended that the KSAT had misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi by not considering subsequent clarifications in cases like State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari and Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, which allowed for the regularization of employees who had completed ten years of service in sanctioned posts. The petitioner emphasised that his duties were equivalent to those of regular employees and that procedural delays should not negate his entitlement to regularisation.

Respondents’ Perspective:

The respondents, represented by Advocate Vikas Rojipura, maintained that the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post and lacked formal appointment orders or conclusive proof of continuous service. They argued that, per the Umadevi judgment, daily wage employees do not have an inherent right to regularisation, especially if their appointments were not made through the prescribed selection process. The respondents also highlighted that the petitioner’s continued employment was due to interim relief granted by courts, not official recognition of his service tenure.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court found that the KSAT had erred in its rigid application of the Umadevi judgment without considering subsequent clarifications. The Court noted that the petitioner had provided substantial evidence, including salary records and service certificates, demonstrating his continuous and uninterrupted employment. It emphasised that the absence of a formal appointment order should not negate the rights of an employee who had been continuously engaged in service.

The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaggo v. Union of India, which clarified that the Umadevi judgment was not intended to penalise employees who had rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State. It also cited Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, where it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularisation to an employee who has performed the same duties as regular employees over a considerable period.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the KSAT’s order and directed the respondents to regularise the petitioner’s services, acknowledging that procedural irregularities or delays cannot be the sole grounds for denial when an employee has served continuously in a sanctioned post for over ten years.