“‘Procedural Irregularities Can’t Deny Substantive Rights’: Karnataka HC Holds Daily Wager with 10+ Years in Sanctioned Post Entitled to Regularization under Articles 14 & 16”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of service regularization and upheld another Tribunal order granting pensionary benefits to retired monthly-rated labourers. The Court quashed the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order denying regularization and directed the State to grant regular status and consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner. Concurrently, it dismissed a State petition against a separate Tribunal order and directed pensionary disbursals to similarly placed retired workers.
The matter comprised two writ petitions: WP No. 6238 of 2020 filed by a Forest Department employee seeking service regularization, and WP No. 48123 of 2019 filed by the State challenging the grant of pensionary benefits to retired employees of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries.
In WP No. 6238 of 2020, the petitioner, P. Junjappa, served as a daily wage Forest Watcher/Driver for over three decades. Despite prolonged and uninterrupted service, he was denied regularization through endorsements issued on 29 August 2016. His subsequent application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) was dismissed by order dated 31 July 2019. The KSAT cited lack of continuous service records, failure to meet the criteria laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), delay in filing the petition, and absence of parity evidence with similarly situated employees.
Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s dismissal, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the KSAT order and directions to regularize his service, citing equivalence in duties with regular employees and invoking Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
In the connected WP No. 48123 of 2019, the State Government challenged KSAT’s order dated 10 October 2018, which had allowed the applications of retired Monthly Paid Labourers (MPLs) from Amrith Mahal Cattle Breeding Centre, Ajjampura, who sought pensionary benefits. These individuals, initially engaged as daily wagers between 1963 and 1969, were later categorized as MPLs and claimed parity with other employees who had received pensions.
The respondents asserted discriminatory denial of pensionary entitlements despite rendering over three decades of service. They approached the Tribunal seeking equal treatment under Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution.
The State resisted both petitions. In the first case, it submitted that the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post and had no formal appointment order. In the second, it cited Government Order FD 26 SRF (166) dated 12 May 1966 to assert that MPLs belonged to a non-pensionable contingent establishment.
“The Tribunal has committed multiple errors in law and on facts, resulting in grave injustice to the petitioner.” In WP No. 6238 of 2020, the Court stated that the KSAT had misapplied the decision in Umadevi (3), failing to consider subsequent clarifications in M.L. Kesari v. State of Karnataka.
“Employees who have completed ten years of service in sanctioned posts prior to the pronouncement of Umadevi (supra) are entitled to regularization.” The Court recorded that the petitioner’s continuous service of more than 30 years was substantiated by salary records, service certificates, and departmental correspondence. “The absence of a formal appointment order should not in itself, negate the legitimate rights of an employee who has been continuously engaged in service.”
On the issue of delay, the Court held: “Delay cannot be the sole criterion to deny service benefits, particularly when an employee has been continuously engaged by the Government.”
The Bench found that similarly situated employees had been regularized and that denial of equal treatment violated Articles 14 and 16. “The petitioner has provided cogent evidence to demonstrate that, other similarly situated employees have been granted regularization while he has been arbitrarily denied the same relief.”
In WP No. 48123 of 2019, the Court observed: “Denying the pensionary benefits to the respondents despite their prolonged and dedicated service for over three decades amounted to arbitrary and unjustified distinction.” The KSAT had rightly found that similarly placed employees had received pensionary benefits under Government orders dated 8 September 2011 and 22 October 2013.
“The act of granting pensionary benefits to certain employees while simultaneously denying the same to the respondents, who are identically situated, constitutes an instance of hostile discrimination.”
The Court also invoked Article 39(d), stating: “The doctrine of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ applies in full force to the present case and denial of pensionary benefits to the respondents is indirect contravention of this well-established constitutional principle.”
It further relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, noting: “The respondents having served under identical conditions and for an equivalent period… reasonably expect that, the same treatment would be extended to them.”
In Writ Petition No. 6238 of 2020, the Court quashed the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in M.L. Kesari and other applicable judgments. The Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of pay, in line with the Doctrine of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. The process of regularization was to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
In Writ Petition No. 48123 of 2019, the Court dismissed the petition filed by the State and directed that pensionary benefits be extended to the respondents in the same manner as granted to other similarly situated employees. It was further directed that the arrears of pensionary benefits be computed and disbursed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court also emphasized that there should be no further instances of arbitrary denial of pensionary benefits to similarly placed employees. A compliance report regarding the implementation of this order was to be filed before the Registry of the Court within the stipulated time frame.
The Court directed that the original order be placed in Writ Petition No. 6238 of 2020 and a copy in Writ Petition No. 48123 of 2019 for reference. No costs were imposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Ranganatha S. Jois, Advocate; Sri Vikas Rojipura, Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri R. Swaminathan, Advocate
Case Title: Sri P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:10889-DB
Case Number: WP No. 6238 of 2020 c/w WP No. 48123 of 2019
Bench: Justice Krishna S. Dixit, Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar
[Read/Download order]
