Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikkanna vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.10632 OF 2021 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.4553 OF 2022 (S-REG),
WRIT PETITION No.27469 OF 2023 (S-RES),
WRIT PETITION No.27478 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN W.P.No.10632/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.CHIKKANNA
S/O RAMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OFFICE:UAS VC FARM,
MANDYA-571 405.
Digitally 2. SRI.H.C.SHANKARAIAH,
signed by
KIRAN S/O CHIKKAYYA,
KUMAR R AGED AOBUT 44 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH R/AT HULLAL GRAMA,
COURT OF MANDYA TALUK,
KARNATAKA
MANDYA DISTRICT-571405.
3. SMT.SHETTAHALLININGAMMA,
W/O LATE SHETTAHALLITIMMAIAH,
AGED AOBUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT E, 8 SRS COLONY,
ZARS V C FARM, MANDYA,
DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK &
DISTRICT-574 105
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT-574 105.
4. SRI.SHASHI, S/O SHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT RRS QUATRES, MYSORE-571 435.
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
NAGENAHALLI, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 405.
5. SRI.BOMMAYYA,
S/O PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEAS,
R/AT RRS QUATRES, MYSORE-571435
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
NAGENAHALLI, MYSORE DISTRICT.
6. SRI KRISHNA D K
S/O KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT UAS VC FARM,
MANDYA-571405.
7. SRI SHIVANNA
S/O LATE GENDEBORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT ARS COLONY,
ZARS V C FARM, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE ZARS VC FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
8. SMT MAHADEVAMMA
S/O LATE SANMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT DATC VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE: DATA V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
9. SRI M S BILIGOWDA
S/O LATE POSE SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT MALLANAYAKANA KATTE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
10 . SMT SANNAMMA M
S/O M S BILIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT MALLANAYAKANA KATTE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE MALLANAYAKANAHALLI KATTE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
11 . SRI C M BOVAIAH
S/O MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI, KERAGUDU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE CHOKKANAHALLI,
KERAGUDU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
12 . SRI VENKATESHA
S/O SANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT GANADALU VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE GANADALU VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
13 . SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE PUTTACHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT KADUKOTTANAHALLI, DODDAMULAGUDU POST,
BANNUR HOBLI,
T NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCE V C FARM,
MANDYA-571405.
14 . SRI BHAGYA
S/O LATE LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT MALLANAYAKANA KATTE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE ZARS VC FARM, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
15 . SRI NARAYANA
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT K HONNALAGERE, MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571433
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
16 . SRI GANADALU JAYALAKSHMI
W/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT GANADALU VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TOWN AND DIST-571405
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
17 . SRI PRAKASH
S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
18 . SRI CHIKKIRAMMA
W/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT SRS COLONY NO.E7,
ZARS V C FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE UAS V C FARM,
MANDYA-571405.
19 . SRI A SHIVANNA
S/O MARIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT ZARS V C FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
20 . SRI NAGESH
S/O CHAMIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT ARS COLONY,
VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE KRISHI VIGNANA KENDRA,
V C FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
21 . SRI. PUTTARAJU
S/O. JOGAIAH,
R/AT HULIKERE KOPPALU,
DODDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE - UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
22 . SRI. H SANNE GOWDA
S/O. MADE GOWDA,
R/AT SRS COLONY, NO. E7,
ZARS V C FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
23 . SMT. HEGGADAHAVI MAHADEVAMMA
W/O. H. SANNE GOWDA,
R/AT SRS COLONY, NO. E7,
ZARS VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
24 . SRI. SWAMY, S/O. MANJANNA,
SINCE DECEASED
24a. VISHALAKSHI(WIFE)
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT:GANANGURU,
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA-571807.
24.b. MANOJ G.S.(SON)
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT- 24/57, GROUND FLOOR,
2ND CROSS, MOHAMMED LAYOUT,
BHOOPASANDRA, RMV 2ND STAGE,
KARNATAKA-560094.
24.c. SHILPA G.S (DAUGHTER)
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT- 54, KARIYAPPANA DODDI,
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA, KARNATAKA-562109.
25 . SRI. KRISHNA
S/O. SRINIVAS RAO,
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
R/AT GANDALU,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE UAS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
26 . SRI. P M MAHADEVAYYA
S/O. MADHAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
PAVC FARM, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
27 . SRI. AMMALLI PUTTASWAMY
W/O. ERRAIAH,
R/AT SRS COLONY, NO. E7,
ZARS VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
VC FARM, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
28 . SRI. B N NINGAIAH
S/O. MADAYYA,
R/AT BETTAHALLI, NELREKERI POST,
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571415,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
29 . SMT. PUTTALAKSHMI
S/O. SIDDAIAH,
R/AT SRS COLONY, NO. E7, ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405
OFFICE ZARS VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
30 . SMT. UMA
W/O. NINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 263, DUDDA HOBLI,
GANDALU, MANDYA DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
VC FARM, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
31 . SMT. GANDALU KEMALAMMA
S/O. KEMPAIAYYA,
R/AT GANDALU, VC FARM POST
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
32. SMT.HOSAHALLISHIVAMMA,
W/O BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 405.
33. SRI. CHANDRA, S/O. CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT GANDALU,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE UAS VC FARM,
MANDYA 571405.
34 . SRI. CHANNAPPA, S/O. SANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT GANDALU,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571405.
35 . SMT. PREMA
W/O. SIDDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT51 YEARS,
R/AT GANDALU, MANDYA DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
VC FARM, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
36. SRI. YOGESH
S/O. PUTTAMADAIAH,
R./AT SRS COLONY,
NO. E7, ZARS V C FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
37 . SRI.N SHIVASWAMY
S/O. MALLIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.ANUSHA.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURAL AND
HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
MS BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE SECRETARY
GOVT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
AND FISHERIES, MS BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
GKVK, BENGALURLU 560065.
4. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
MANDYA.
5. THE KARNATAKA VETERINARY
ANIMAL AND FISHERIES
SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
KVAFSU, MYSURU,
REGISTRAR.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
6. THE REGISTRAR
ZARS, VC FARM,
MYSORE 571405
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI.B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, R-4 & R-6;
SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF
THE PETITIONERS ON COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF SERVICE
NOT ONLY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PARITY BUT BASED ON THE
DECISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY AND THE PETITIONERS CANNOT VE
DISCRIMINATED IN THE MATTER OF ABSORPTION AND
REGULARIZATION INCLUDING THE FIXATION OF PAY SCALE,
ETC.
IN W.P.No.4553/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.NAGAMMA,
W/O NANJUNDECHAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT B.M.ROAD, HALADAHALLI GATE,
MADENUR,
HASSAN-573 225
W/A AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION
MADENUR, HASSAN-573 225.
2. SMT.PADMA,
W/O DODDEGOWDA,
AGED BOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI,
RAGIMUDDANAHALLI,
K.BYADRAHALLI,
HASSAN-573220
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
W/A COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
KARKERE
HASAN-573225.
3. SMT.NANJAMMA,
W/O MANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT #102, NEAR KERE CHANNARAYAPATNA,
SOMANATHANAHALLI, SAGATHAVALLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA,
HASSAN-573116.
W/A AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION
MADENUR, HASSAN-573225.
4. SMT.LALITHA, W/O MANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT #9, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HADAHALLI, MADENUR, HASSAN-573225
W/A AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION
MADENUR, HASSAN-573225.
5. SRI.KUMARA.H.K.,
S/O LATE KALASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HADAHALLI,
MADENUR, HASSAN-573 225.
W/A AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION
MADENUR, HASSAN-573 225.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.ANUSHA.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE
DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
2. THE SECRETARY,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMNET OF
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY,
AND FISHERIES, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
GKVK, BENGALURU-560 065.
4. THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL,
SCIENCES, HASSAN-573 225.
5. THE KARNATAKA VETERINARY,
ANIMAL & FISHERIES SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY, (KVAFSU),
HASSAN, REGISTRAR-573 205.
6. THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
OF RESEARCH
HASSAN-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI.M.SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4;
SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF
THE PETITIONERS ON COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF SERVICE
NOT ONLY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PARITY BUT BASED ON THE
DECISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY AND THE PETITIONERS CANNOT BE
DISCRIMINATED IN THE MATTER OF ABSORPTION AND
REGULARIZATION INCLUDING THE FIXATION OF PAY-SCALE,
ETC.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
IN W.P. No.27469/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.NARAYANASWAMY.K.T.,
SON OF K.L.THAMMANNA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
WORKED AS FARM LABOUR (D-GROUP),
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE AND
NUTRITION, CAS, UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
2. SRI.ANANTHA, SON OF MUDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER,
FARM OFFICE, ZARS,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
3. SRI.H.S.NAGARAJU,
SON OF LATE SUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
WORKING IN UG BOYS HOSTEL
UNVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K, BANGALORE-560 065.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.NANDA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR,
SACHIVALAYA,
BENAGALURU-560 001.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
2. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UAS, G.K.V.K.,
BANGALORE-560 065.
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SCIENCES,
U.A.S., G.K.V.K, BANGALORE-560 065.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI.B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-A, DATED 29/11/2023, VIDE
No.AO/LS/SD/C/N/V/2023-24, PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.3,
ETC.
IN W.P.No.27478/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SUJATHA DEVI.R.,
WIFE OF SRI.SATEESHA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY AS
FARM LABOUR (D-GROUP)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS,
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
2. SRI.N.SRINIVASA,
SON OF SRI.NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR
(D-GROUP), DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY,
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K BANGALORE-560 065.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
3. SRI.S.RAJANNA,
SON OF SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOUR
(D-GROUP)
DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE, CAS,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
4. SMT.VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
WIFE OF NARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER,
DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS & PLANT BREEDING
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
CAS, G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
5. SRI.RAJU.P @ PERUMAL,
SON OF MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER,
DEPARTMENT OF BOTANICAL GARDEN,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
CAS, G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
6. SRI.L.NARAYANA SWAMY,
SON OF LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOUR,
A.I.C.R.P. SMALL MILLETS, ZARS,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
UAS, G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
7. SRI.RAMEGOWDA.M
SON OF MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR,
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRIVULTURAL ENGINEERING,
UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURAL SCEINECES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
8. SRI.T.G.SIDDARAJU,
SON OF SRI.GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING & ABM, UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, COA,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
9. SRI. BYLAPPA.B.
SON OF SRI.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR,
OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
10. SMT.JAYAMMA,
WIFE OF SRI.CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEAS,
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER,
DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
11. SRI.HANUMANTHARAYA,
SON OF SRI.NARASIMHAPPA,A
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOURER,
HORTICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
12. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA,
WIFE OF SRI.JANA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER,
FARM OFFICE, ZARS,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
13. SRI.M.N.PUTTASWAMY,
SON OF LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING IN PG BOYS HOSTEL,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
...PETITIONERS
(BY B.L. NANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
AGRICULTURE AND
HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
4TH FLOOR SACHIVALAYA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UAS, G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SCIENCES, U.A.S.,
G.K.V.K.,
BANGALORE-560 065.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI.B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-A, DATED 29.11.2023 VIDE
No.AO/LS/SD/C/N/V/2023-24, PASSED BY THE R-3, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
WP No. 10632 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4553 of 2022
WP No. 27469 of 2023
WP No. 27478 of 2023
ORDER
1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the
employees of respondent--Institution, who had initially
been appointed as daily-wagers and pursuant to the
Karnataka Dailywage Employees Welfare Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as "the 2012 Act"), they were
brought under its purview and have been working as daily-
wage employees, as envisaged under the 2012 Act, ever
since.
2. They are before this Court seeking a direction to the
respondents to regularize their services on the principle of
parity and they place reliance on the decisions rendered in
K.P.Raju1 and other cases narrated in their prayers.
3. Since the facts involved and contentions advanced
are the same, all these writ petitions are clubbed together
and disposed of by this common order.
K.P. Raju and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., W.P. Nos.13858-678 of
2000, disposed of on 31.03.2003.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
BRIEF FACTS :
4. The petitioners had been admittedly appointed as
daily-wage employees after 01.07.1984 and had
completed ten years of service in the respondent--
Institution and the petitioners have rendered service for
periods ranging between fifteen to thirty years.
5. In the light of the fact that regularization was
permissible only in respect of employees who had been
appointed after 01.07.1984 and who had completed ten
years of service as on 10.04.2006, as per the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in Umadevi's (3)2 case, in
respect of the other daily-wage employees who could not
be regularised, the State Government of Karnataka
enacted the 2012 Act with effect from 15.02.2013.
6. This 2012 Act fundamentally sought to declare that
the daily-wage employees (i.e., an employee engaged on
daily-wages by the Government or by the local bodies who
The Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors.,
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : AIR 2006 SC 1806
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
had worked and completed not less than ten years of
service as on 10.04.2006 and who had been working as on
15.02.2013 i.e., the date on which the 2012 Act came into
force) should be continued as daily wage employees till
they attained the age of 60 years. The law obligated the
State Government to notify the names of the eligible
employees of all establishments for the purpose of
continuing them till they attained 60 years, within a year
from the date of commencement of the 2012 Act i.e., on
or before 14.02.2014.
7. In other words, notwithstanding the judgment
rendered in Umadevi's case, which had permitted
regularisation only once as an "one-time measure", the
Legislature sought to protect the interests of the
employees who had been engaged on daily-wages and
who had worked for more than ten years as on
10.04.2006, by continuing them as daily-wage employees
and granting them substantial benefits.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
8. The 2012 Act, apart from continuing the daily-wage
employees till they attained 60 years, also sought to
confer some benefits on them, viz.,
(i) Firstly, it declared that they would be paid the
minimum of the time scale of pay of the post in
which the daily-wage employees were
continued;
(ii) Secondly, they were also entitled for Dearness
Allowance and House Rent Allowance;
(iii) Thirdly, they were entitled to all General
Holidays, Casual Leave of fifteen days and
Earned leave of thirty days per year;
(iv) Fourthly, they could be given an increase in pay
at such intervals as the Government may
determine; and
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
(v) Lastly, they would also be entitled to terminal
benefits or ex-gratia, as may be determined
and notified by the Government.
It may be pertinent to state here that the Rules
framed under the 2012 Act stipulated that a
daily-wage employee would be paid fifteen
days' salary for every completed year of service
rendered, subject to a maximum of twelve
months.
9. Thus, the 2012 Act granted daily-wage employees a
security of tenure and a reasonable extent of benefits, as
compared to a regular Government servant.
10. It is not in dispute that a total of 171 employees of
the respondent--University, including the petitioners
herein, who had worked for ten years as on 10.04.2006,
were brought within the purview of the 2012 Act, by
notifying their names in the Notification dated 20.12.2013.
Thus, the petitioners, by virtue of the said Notification,
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
became entitled to continue as daily-wage employees till
they attained the age of 60 years and were, as a
consequence, also entitled to the benefits conferred under
the 2012 Act.
11. On 05.01.2019, the University took up the issue of
regularization of services of 128 Group 'D' employees who
had been rendering services for fifteen to twenty years
and who were all at the fag end of their careers and at the
verge of retirement, the University proceeded to pass a
Resolution in the following manner (Annexure 'R7' to the
Objections in WP No.10632 of 2021):
"Item-37: PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-gÀ°è
PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ 128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß r-zÀeÉð PÉëÃvÀæPÁ«ÄðPÀ (¸ÀASÁåjPÀÛ)
ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
¸ÀzÀj PÁAiÀÄð¸ÀÆa LlA §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀÄ®¥ÀwUÀ¼ÀÄ
ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ, F 128 ªÀÄA¢ r-UÀÆæ¥ï ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 15-20 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è
PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, §ºÀÄvÉÃPÀ ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ
CAa£À°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ. «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀĪÀÅ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
wæðUÉƼÀ¥ÀlÄÖ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ²æêÀÄw Dgï.¸ÀÄeÁvÁzÉë
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÉà jÃw, F
128 r-UÀÆæ¥ï ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß
PÉÆÃgÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ
ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ
PÉëêÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Ý C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ-2012gÀ eÁjAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ
gÁdåzÀ ««zsÀ E¯ÁSÁ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀÄ«PÉUÉ ¤§ðAzsÀUÀ½gÀĪÀÅzÀ£Àß «ªÀj¹zÀgÀÄ.
AiÀiÁªÀ ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É F 128 ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛÃgÉAzÀÄ
PÉýzÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ, EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ PÉëêÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Ý
C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ-2012gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è
SÁAiÀÄA DV ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ¯ÁVzÀÝgÀÆ ²æêÀÄw
Dgï.¸ÀÄeÁvÀzÉë ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀAvÉ
vÀªÀÄä£ÀÆß ¸ÀºÁ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
£ÁåAiÀĸÀªÀÄävÀªÁVzÉ. C®èzÉÃ, ¸ÀzÀj 128 ªÀÄA¢
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ°è §ºÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ ªÀÄA¢ ¤ªÀÈwÛ
CAa£À°ègÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀgÉ DUÀĪÀ
DyðPÀ ªÉZÀѪÀÅ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß
«±Àé«zsÁ央AiÀĪÀÅ DAvÀjPÀ ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®UÀ½AzÀ
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
¨sÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀÆvÀ£À ¦AZÀt AiÉÆÃd£É
(J£ï.¦.J¸ï.)AiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃj¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀjAzÀ
¸ÀPÁðgÀPÁÌUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄPÁÌUÀ°Ã
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉaÑ£À ºÉÆgÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. MmÁÖgÉ ªÁ¶ðPÀ
ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÉZÀÑ gÀÆ.82.00 ®PÀëUÀ¼ÁzÀgÀÆ ¥Àæwà ªÀµÀð
§ºÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛ
ºÉÆAzÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÁ¶ðPÀªÁV DyðPÀ ºÉÆgÉ
PÀrªÉÄAiÀiÁUÀÄvÁÛ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀĪÀÅ
FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¹§âA¢ PÉÆgÀvɬÄAzÀ §ºÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ
C£Á£ÀÄPÀÆ®UÀ¼À£ÀÄß JzÀÄj¸ÀÄwÛzÉ. C®èzÉÃ, r-UÀÆæ¥ï
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆgÀUÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ°è £ÉëĹPÉƼÀî®Ä
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ«gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ SÁAiÀÄA
(r-UÀÆæ¥À) £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄÄ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è
EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢ÃWÀð PÁ®¢AzÀ
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÁV ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ F 128
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ¨ÁjUÉ «±ÉõÀ
¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw
¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀÄ®¥ÀwUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À¨sÉUÉ PÉÆÃjzÀgÀÄ.
PÀÄ®¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄPÉÌ EvÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ vÀªÀÄä
¸ÀªÀÄäwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆa¹, CzÉà C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹zÀgÀÄ. ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÄ¢üÃWÀðªÁV
ZÀZÉðAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è PÉ®¸À
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ (PÁAiÀÄð¸ÀÆa LlA£À°è ªÀÄAr¹zÀ)
128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄß r-zÀeÉð PÉëÃvÀæPÁ«ÄPÀ
(¸ÀÀASÁåjPÀÛ) ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ DAvÀjPÀ
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®UÀ¼À£ÀÄß §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¨ÁjUÉ «±ÉõÀ
¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä
wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀÆvÀ£À
¦AZÀt AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃj¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ
¸ÀÆa¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ (Action: Comptroller/
Administrative Officer)."
12. It may be pertinent to state here that on
31.03.2003, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.
Nos.13858-867 of 2000, dealing with a writ petition filed
by one K.P.Raju and nine others held that anyone who had
been employed continuously for more than ten years of
service on daily-wages, should be considered for
regularization, provided there was no fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of the daily-wage employee
in securing or continuing his daily-wage employment and
he possessed the prescribed qualifications.
13. The Division Bench, taking into consideration the fact
that the petitioners therein had put in more than ten years
of service, directed it to consider the case of the
petitioners therein for regularization.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
14. Pursuant to the said order, the University passed an
order on 13.08.2009 (Annexure 'F' to WP No.10632 of 2021),
regularizing the services of K.P.Raju and seven others.
15. On 23.10.2008, the claim of Sujatha Devi R. and
others for regularization was rejected by the University
and this led to the filing of W.P. Nos.1164-78 of 2012 (S-
Res).
16. This Court by an order dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure
'R11' to the Objections in WP No.10632 of 2021) directed the
University to consider their case for regularization without
reference to the impugned endorsement dated
23.10.2008, which had rejected their claim for
regularization.
17. Complaining that said order was not complied with, a
contempt petition in CCC Nos.2694-2708 of 2013 was filed
and during the pendency of that proceeding, the University
submitted a modified order of regularization by which the
services of Sujatha Devi and others were regularised. As
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
a consequence of this order, the contempt proceedings
were closed 22.06.2014.
18. Thereafter, in the year 2015, the State Government
filed a review petition, requesting this Court to review the
order that had been passed in W.P. Nos.1164-78 of 2012
in favour of Sujatha Devi and others. However, by an
order dated 02.02.2016, this Court rejected the review
petition. Thus, in respect of Sujatha Devi and others, the
attempt of the State to reverse the order of regularisation
made in their favour was negatived and this order has also
attained finality.
19. On 13.04.2017, the University in its 372nd meeting
resolved to seek legal opinion regarding the matter of
regularisation. It, thereafter, formed a Committee to look
into the demands and the Committee, in turn,
recommended the regularization of Sujatha Devi and
others on humanitarian grounds.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
20. On 05.12.2017, in its 376th meeting, the University
resolved to allow the Registrar to take appropriate decision
in the said matter and accordingly, on 20.01.2018, the
University proceeded to pass an order regularizing the
services of Sujatha Devi and others.
21. Thus, in respect of twenty-five daily-wage
employees (Sujatha Devi & 14 others; H.S.Nagaraju and
another--petitioners in WP Nos.26310-311 of 2012; and
K.P.Raju and 7 others) who were also amongst the 171
employees notified under the 2012 Act, the University
regularised their services.
22. On 05.01.2019, the University, in its 379th Board
Meeting, took up the issue of regularizing the services of
128 Group 'D' employees working as daily-wagers for the
past fifteen to twenty years and most of them were on the
verge of retirement. The University took note of the fact
that R.Sujatha Devi and 14 others had already been
regularized, and it was also necessary that remaining 128
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
daily-wage employees were also required to be
regularised.
23. As could be seen from the aforesaid Resolution dated
05.01.2019 (supra), the University had resolved to
regularize the services of 128 Group 'D' employees to
maintain in pari materia relation to the regularization that
it had already granted to Sujatha Devi and others.
24. It may also be vitally important to notice here that
the University was prepared to bear the entire financial
burden of regularizing 128 Group 'D' employees by
treating it as a special case, and that it would not pass on
the burden to the State Government.
25. However, within about thirteen days, the
Government proceeded to pass an order on 18.02.2019
directing the University to keep the Resolution dated
05.01.2019 in abeyance. The Government wanted to know
under which provision the 128 employees were to be
regularised and it communicated the same to the
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
University in the following terms (Annexure 'R8' to the
Objections in WP No.10632 of 2021):
" ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18.02.2019
xxx
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ
379£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½AiÀÄ°è
¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ LlA 37gÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀȶ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ 128 ªÀÄA¢
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß r-zÀeÉð PÉëÃvÀæ PÁ«ÄðPÀ
(±ÀASÁåjPÀÛ) ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹,
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀ PÉëêÀÄ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉà E®èzÀ
¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è, ¸ÀzÀj £ÀqÀªÀ½AiÀÄ LlA £ÀA.37gÀ°è
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ¤tðAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉ»rAiÀÄĪÀAvÉ
vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®¥ÀnÖzÉÝãÉ."
26. On 04.06.2019, the matter of regularization of 128
employees was once again taken up by the University.
The Board of Management observed that its earlier
Resolution dated 05.01.2019 had been withheld, yet all
the Members of the Board insisted that the matter may be
once again discussed with the Secretary of the
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
Government, Department of Agriculture, Government of
Karnataka and necessary consent was required to be
obtained to absorb these 128 daily-wage employees. Thus,
for the second time, the University had resolved that the
128 daily-wage employees were required to be
regularized.
27. On 04.10.2019, the Board, once again passed a
Resolution and pursuant to the said Resolution, a letter
was addressed to the Principal Secretary in the following
terms (Annexure 'R9' to the Objections in WP No.10632 of
2021):
"PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
CqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj, UÁA¢ü PÀȶ «eÁÕ£À PÉÃAzÀæ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 065.
¢£ÁAPÀ:30.10.2019
¸ÀASÉå:PÀÈ««¨ÉA/DPÀ/¸Á«-1/128 ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ/2019-20
EªÀjUÉÀ,
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ,
PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ,
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ,
§ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 001.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
«µÀAiÀÄ: 128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄ
UÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ
05.01.2019 IÄAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ 379£Éà ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á
ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ £ÀqÁªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ.
2. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀÈE 16 PÀÈ«¨É 2018
¢£ÁAPÀ:18.02.2019.
3. PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 04.10.2019
gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ 381£Éà ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ
¤zsÁðgÀ
4. PÀÄ®¥ÀwUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÀÈ««, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - gÀªÀgÀ
C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.10.2019.
*****
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, PÀȶ
«±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ 128
ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä G¯ÉèÃR-
(1)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¤zsÁðgÀªÀ£ÀÄß
G¯ÉèÃR-2gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ vÀqÉ»rAiÀįÁVvÀÄÛ.
¢£UÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀjUÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀ PÉëêÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2012 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ
ªÀÄÆ®ªÉÃvÀ£À (±ÉÃPÀqÁ 100 gÀµÀÄÖ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀÄnÖ¨sÀvÉå,
ªÀģɨÁrUÉ ¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß (±ÉÃPÀqÁ 75 gÀµÀÄÖ) ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ.
PÀ¼ÉzÀ 2-30ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ 128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ PÀȶ
«±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ PÉ®ªÀÅ
ªÀÄA¢ ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ
CAa£À°èzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä PÀrªÉÄ ªÉZÀѪÁzÀ
G½zÀ ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 25gÀµÀÄÖ (vÀÄnÖ¨sÀvÉå, ªÀģɨÁrUÉ ¨sÀvÉå)£ÀÄß PÀȶ
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
«±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ DAvÀjPÀ DzÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¨sÀj¹PÉƼÀÄîªÅÀ zÁV
ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ZÀZÉðAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀjAzÁV,
¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ
EªÀgÀÄ 2006gÀ J£ï.¦.J¸ï(ºÉƸÀ ¦AZÀt AiÉÆÃd£É) Cr
M¼À¥ÀqÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ªÉÄð£À G¯ÉèÃR-2£ÀÄß ¸ÉE°¹ ¸ÀzÀj
¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß «±ÉõÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ D 128 ªÀÄA¢
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ
PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¤zÉðòvÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ, vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¸À»/-
DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ."
28. As could be seen from the above Resolution, the
Board once again re-iterated in categorical terms that the
regularization of 128 Group 'D' employees would cast no
financial burden on the State Government, and therefore,
it would be appropriate for the Government to relax its
decision dated 18.02.2019 (by which it had directed the
Resolution dated 05.01.2019 to be kept in abeyance) and
treat this as a special case and grant its consent.
29. Thus, it was once again highlighted by the University
that the regularisation of the petitioners would in no way
affect the State Government financially and the State
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
Government ought to permit the University to regularize
the services of 128 daily-wage employees.
30. In response to this communication dated
30.10.2019, the State Government addressed a letter
dated 14.02.2020, by which the University was asked to
submit regarding the compliance of four conditions
indicated in the Government Circular dated 13.11.2006
and submit a report along with an appropriate proposal
and documents to the Government.
31. In response to the said communication, the
University responded by its letter dated 03.03.2020 in the
following terms (Annexure 'R10' to the Objections in WP
No.10632 of 2021) :
"PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, UÁA¢ü PÀȶ «eÁÕ£À PÉÃAzÀæ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 065.
¢£ÁAPÀ:03.03.2020
¸ÀASÉå:PÀÈ««¨ÉA/DPÀ/¸Á«-1/128 ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ/2019-
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
EªÀjUÉÀ,
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ,
PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ,
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ,
§ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 001.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÁAiÀÄð
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ 128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀÈ««¨ÉA/DPÀ/¸Á«-1/128
¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ/2019-20, ¢£ÁAPÀ:30.10.2019.
2 ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀÈE 19 PÀÈ«¨É 2019
¢£ÁAPÀ:14.02.2020.
3. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE 25
¸ÉøÁÜ 2003 (¨sÁ), ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.11.2006.
4. PÀÄ®¥ÀwUÀ¼À C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¢£ÁAPÀ
03.03.2020.
*****
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀȶ
«±Àé«zÁå¤AiÀÄzÀ°è, PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ 128 ªÀÄA¢
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä G¯ÉèÃR-(1)gÀ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ
¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¥ÀgÀUÀt¸ÀĪÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ
¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ £Á®ÄÌ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ»w
¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
1. ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ/PÀȶ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉëĹgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
2. DzÀgÉ, EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÁUÀ
CªÀgÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉUÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV £ÉêÀÄPÀ
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ,
3. £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀAvÀºÀ J¯Áè ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ/PÀȶ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà 10
ªÀµÀðQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ¸ÉêÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥ÀÆgÉʹgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
4. F £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CxÀªÁ £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄAqÀ½UÀ¼À
DzÉñÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
DzÁUÀÆå, ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀjUÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà PÀ£ÁðlPÀ
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ PÉëêÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 16 ¸ÉøÀÜ C2019, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
¢£ÁAPÀ:10.01.2020 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®ªÉÃvÀ£À (±ÉÃPÀqÁ
100gÀµÀÄÖ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀÄnÖ¨sÀvÉå, ªÀģɨÁrUÉ ¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß (±ÉÃPÀqÁ
90gÀµÀÄÖ) ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ.
PÀ¼ÉzÀ 25-30 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ 128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è PÉ®¸À
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ PÉ®ªÀÅ ªÀÄA¢ ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ CAa£À°èzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä
PÀrªÉÄ ªÉZÀѪÁzÀ G½zÀ ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 10gÀµÀÄÖ(vÀÄnÖ¨sÀvÉå,
ªÀģɨÁrUÉ ¨sÀvÉå)£ÀÄß PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ DAvÀjPÀ
ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ¨sÀj¹PÉÆAqÀgÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ
ºÉÆgÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀÄ 2006gÀ
J£ï.¦.J¸ï(ºÉƸÀ ¦AZÀt AiÉÆÃd£É)Cr
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
M¼À¥ÀqÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß «±ÉõÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÉAzÀÄ
¥ÀjUÀt¹ D 128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ
¤zÉðòvÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆÃA¢UÉ, vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¸À»/-
PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ."
32. As could be seen from the above, the University did
state that the 128 Group 'D' employees had not been
appointed to any sanctioned posts, but they were
appointed depending on the educational qualifications they
possessed. The University reiterated that all the 128
Group 'D' employees had already completed ten years of
service and none of them had continued in service by
virtue of any orders of the Court.
33. It was also stated that 128 employees had been
given the benefits under the 2012 Act and that they had
been working for the past twenty-five to thirty years and
some of them had even attained the age of
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
superannuation and some of them were on the verge of
retirement.
34. It was also specifically stated that, by regularizing
these employees, no financial burden would be cast on the
State Government and the expenditure would be met out
of the internal resources of the University. The University
once again re-iterated its request to the Government to
treat this as a special case and permit them to regularize
the 128 Group 'D' employees.
35. Despite this third request of the Board, the
Government refused to grant permission to regularize the
services of the petitioners by its communication dated
22.07.2020 (Annexure 'R10' series to the Objections in WP
No.10632 of 2021). The said communication reads as
follows:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
¸ÀASÉå:PÀÈE16PÀÈ«¨É 2019 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ
§ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:22.07.2020.
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
EªÀjAzÀ,
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ,
§ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 001.
EªÀjUÉ,
PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ,
PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ, f.PÉ.«.PÉ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 065.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÁAiÀÄð
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ 128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀÈ««¨ÉA/DPÀ/¸Á«-1/128
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ/2019-20, ¢£ÁAPÀ:
03.03.2020.
*****
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.07.1984gÀ
£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwAiÀÄ §UÉÎ
¢£ÁAPÀ:13.11.2006gÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE 25 ¸ÉøÀÜC
2003 (¨sÁ)gÀ°è ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ. EAvÀºÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ vÉUÉAiÀÄzÉ CªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ
¨sÀzÀævÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr 60 ªÀµÀð
ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì vÀ®Ä¥ÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ®Ä
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ PÉëêÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Ý C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ,
2012£ÀÄß eÁjUÉ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁw
PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤ÃwUÉ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä
CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÀgÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è
¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹gÀĪÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä
CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä
¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ.
vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ,
¸À»/-
(Dgï.gÁd±ÉÃRgï)
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ (¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ).
36. The Board once again took up the issue of
regularization for its consideration on 16.12.2019 and
proceeded to pass the following Resolution (Annexure 'R18'
to the Objections in WP No.10632 of 2021):
"Minutes of the 383rd Meeting of the Board
of Management, UAS, Bangalore held on
16th December, 2019 at 11.00 A.M. in the
Board Meeting Hall, 6th Floor, Naik Bhavan,
UAS, GKVK Campus, Bengaluru.
***** ***** *****
(C) Confirmation of Minutes and
Action Taken Report on the
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
Minutes of 379th Meeting of the
Board of Management of UAS,
Bangalore held on 5th January,
2019.
PART-B: Item: Item-37:
PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÄgÀÄ- gÀ°è PÉ®¸À
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ 128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß r-zÀeÉð PÉëÃvÀæPÁ«ÄðPÀ
(¸ÀASÁåjPÀÛ) ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
While reviewing the action taken
report, the nominated Members of the
Board of Management have urged the
University to make concrete efforts in
appraising the facts of the issue to the
Government. These 128 daily/monthly
rated employees are already receiving
100% of Basic pay and 75% of HRS +
DA as per provisions of Karnataka daily
wages employee's welfare Act-2013. In
case of absorption of these employees
to D-Group posts, the University has
already agreed to bear the estimated
additional financial implication of
Rs.82.00 lakhs (p.a.) from its internal
resources without seeking grants/
funds from the Government.
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
Under these circumstances, it was
decided to pursue the matter with the
Govt. once again by the delegation of
nominated Board Members and
University Officers (Vice-Chancellor
and Registrar) in order to obtain
approval/ decision of the Government
on the issue. (Action:
Registrar/Administrative Officer/
Comptroller)"
37. As could be seen from the aforesaid Resolution, the
Board took note of the fact that the 128 daily-wage
employees were ordered to be entitled to receive 100% of
the Basic Pay and 75% of the HRA as per the provisions of
the 2012 Act and in case they were absorbed, the
University had already taken a decision to bear the
estimated additional financial implication of Rs.82.00 lakhs
per annum from its internal resources without seeking for
any grants/funds from the Government and therefore, the
University had resolved to pursue the matter with the
Government once again by delegation of nominated Board
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
Members and University Officers to secure approval from
the Government on the issue.
38. Thus, the Board, for the fourth time, was of the view
that the services of 128 Group 'D' employees were
required to be regularized and their regularization would
not in any way affect the finance of the Government.
39. This issue was once again considered by the Board in
its 384th meeting on 29.01.2020 (Annexure 'R19' to the
Objections in WP No.10632 of 2021) and a Resolution was
passed in the following terms:
"Minutes of the 384th (Special) Meeting of
the Board of Management, UAS, Bangalore
held on 29th January, 2020 at 1.30 PM in the
Board Meeting Hall, 6th Floor, Naik Bhavan,
UAS, GKVK Campus, Bengaluru.
***** ***** *****
(E) Confirmation of Minutes and Action
Taken Report on the Minutes of
379th Meeting of the Board of
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
Management of UAS, Bangalore
held on 5th January, 2019.
PART-B: Item-37:
PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ
À gÀÄ-gÀ°è PÉ®¸À
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ 128 ªÀÄA¢ ¢£ÀUÆ
À °
£ËPÀgÀgÄÀ UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß r-zÀeÉð PÉëÃvÀæPÁ«ÄðPÀ (¸ÀASÁåjPÀÛ)
ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¸ÀPæª
À ÄÀ UÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
While deliberating on the issue, the
Member of the Board once again
requested for regularization of the 128
Daily rated/monthly rated employees(
as listed in Agenda Item), who have
been absorbed under Karnataka Daily
Wage Employees Welfare Act Rules-
2013. The Chairman informed that,
under this Act, the Government has
once again enhanced the DA and HRA
from 75% to 90% keeping minimum
basic pay from time to time.
The Members of the Board requested
that, the regularization of these 128
employees will add a little more
financial benefit in addition to their
present salary having worked for 15-20
years. The additional expenditure which
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
is arrived for this cause, can be met out
from the internal resources of the
University. Moreover, the number of
employees listed for regularization has
been now reduced to 107 from 128 due
to retirements of few employees.
The Secretary to Agriculture, GoK
opined that, the proposal of the
University submitted in this regard, will
be looked into based on the related
documents. Hence, the Board resolved
to wait for the decision of the
Government to take further course of
action (Action:Administrative
Officer)"
40. As could be seen from the above, the Board took
note of the fact that the additional expenditure that it had
agreed to incur would be met from the internal resources
and it also noticed that the number of employees listed for
regularization had been reduced from 128 to 107 due to
the retirement of a few employees.
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
41. In fact, the Secretary to the Government,
Department of Agriculture, Government of the Karnataka
also opined that the proposal of the University would be
looked into based on the relevant documents and hence,
the Board took a decision to await the decision of the
Government to take further course of action.
42. A reading of this Resolution would indicate that the
Board was given the impression that the Government
would take a re-look in the matter, and therefore, the
Board had decided not to take any further course till the
Government took a decision.
43. This Resolution dated 29.01.2020 was re-iterated in
the Resolution dated 21.04.2020 by the Board in its 385th
meeting (Annexure 'R20' to the Objections in WP No.10632 of
2021).
44. Thus, right from 05.01.2019, it was the consistent
view of the Board that the 128 daily-wage employees
ought to be regularized and that the University would bear
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
the entire financial expenditure without casting any
financial burden on the State Government.
45. It has to be noticed here that the University, in fact,
had made five specific requests to the Government to
regularize their services and is also to be noticed that the
University had already regularised the services of Sujatha
Devi and others who were similarly situated to the 128
daily-wage employees, who were brought within the
purview of the 2012 Act.
46. It appears that thereafter, the Government indicated
that it was not willing to grant its consent for the
University's request to regularize the 128 employees and
as a consequence, the University proceeded to pass a
Resolution on 01.09.2020 (Annexure 'R21' to the Objections
in WP No.10632 of 2021) in the following terms :
"Minutes of the 386th Meeting of the Board
of Management of UAS, Bangalore held on
1st September, 2020 at 11.30 AM in the
Board Meeting Hall, 6th Floor, Naik Bhavan,
UAS, GKVK Campus, Bengaluru.
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
***** ***** *****
Item No.2 : Confirmation of the
Minutes of 385th (Spl)
Meeting of the Board of
Management, UAS,
Bangalore held on 21-04-
2020 and action taken
report on the Minutes.
***** ***** *****
(D) Confirmation of Minutes and Action
Taken Report on the Minutes of
379th Meeting of the Board of
Management of UAS, Bangalore
held on 5th January, 2019.
PART-B : Item-37:
The letter received from the Govt,
indicating non-acceptance of the
University proposal submitted on the
issue was placed before the Board.
The Special Secretary to Finance and
Deputy Secretary to Agriculture, GoK,
apprised about the strict guidelines /
provisions which doesn't permit to
absorb the MRE/DRE employees
against the vacant D-Group sanctioned
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
posts. As the services of 128 Daily
rated/monthly rated employees have
already been continued under
Karnataka Daily Wages Employees
Welfare Act-2013 by extending salary
and other emoluments as per the
guidelines, the issue of absorbing
against sanctioned D-Group posts
doesn't arise.
After detailed deliberations on the
issue, the Board decided to drop this
item since, the University has
continued the services of 128
DRE/MRE under Karnataka Daily
Wages Employees Welfare Act-2013 by
extending all eligible benefits. (Action
: Administrative Officer)"
47. As could be seen from the above, the only reason for
which the University resolved not to go ahead with the
Resolution was because of the fact that the Government
had not agreed to grant its consent.
48. The petitioners have thereafter approached this
Court by way of these writ petitions in the month of June,
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
2021 (WP No.10632 of 2021) seeking for a direction to be
issued to the University for regularization of their services.
49. It may be pertinent to state here that during the
course of arguments, it was pointed out by the petitioners
that a discriminatory approach was adopted by the
University in the matter of regularization, inasmuch as
Sujatha Devi and 14 others had been regularized without
seeking the consent of the Government; but when it came
to the case of other petitioners, the University had taken a
different stand that the consent of the Government was
essential.
50. When the University was queried on this aspect, they
have proceeded to immediately pass an order dated
29.11.2023 withdrawing the orders by which Sujatha Devi
and others had been regularized.
51. Thus, the filing of these writ petitions and the query
raised by this Court as to how one set of employees could
be regularized without the Government's consent while
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
denying said benefit to another group of employees, has
essentially spurred the University into taking the action of
withdrawing the orders of regularisation that it had passed
earlier. In other words, notwithstanding the University's
consistent stand that it intended to regularise 128
employees, it proceeded to withdraw the orders of
regularization that had been passed in favour of Sujatha
Devi and 16 others.
SUBMISSIONS:
52. The learned counsel for the petitioners put forth the
following contentions:
i. The petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of
regularization merely because the Government did
not consent to the decision of the University.
ii. The Government had no role to play in the question
of regularization, since the University had the
exclusive powers, under the very statute under which
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
it was constituted, to create administrative or other
posts.
iii. Neither the University nor the Government could
have relied upon Umadevi's case to deny the benefit
of regularisation to the aforesaid 128 daily wage
employees.
iv. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case was
considering the claim of daily-wage employees for
regularisation, whereas in the instant cases, the
University was itself recommending for regularisation
and therefore, the conditions stipulated in
Umadevi's case would be really of no significance.
v. The State Government's consent would be required
only if the Government funds/grants were being
made in this regard and since the University was to
bear the entire expenditure, the question of the
Government consent for the same did not arise, as
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
the money was being paid by the University funds
and not out of Government grant.
53. The respondents, on the other hand, put forth the
following contentions:
i. The University, though willing to regularize the
petitioners, was impeded in this aspect by the
decision of the Government, and the University
cannot thus be found fault with.
ii. The daily-wagers, being conferred with the benefits
under the 2012 Act, would not be entitled to demand
that they also be given the benefit of regularization.
iii. The decision of the University to recommend for
regularization was ultimately dependent on the
Government's approval and since that was not
forthcoming, the request of the petitioners for
regularization was rightly denied.
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
54. In light of the above arguments, the principal points
that will have to be considered in these writ petitions are:
i. "Whether the respondent-
University was justified in
refusing to regularize the services
of the petitioners merely because
the Government refused to give
its consent for the regularisation?
ii. Whether the University was
justified in withdrawing the
orders of regularization passed in
favour of Sujatha Devi and 16
others after five years?"
REASONING:
55. In order to decide these questions, it would be useful
to have an overview of the provisions of the statute, under
which the University was established.
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
56. The University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009 (for
short, "the Act") was enacted to provide for
comprehensive enactment to consolidate and amend the
law in respect of Universities of Agricultural Sciences for
providing development of Agriculture and allied Sciences in
the State of Karnataka.
57. The Universities created under the Act are made
responsible for the maintenance of Agriculture, Husbandry,
Fishery, Sericulture and Forestry Training or Education
Centres and Research and experimental stations, and for
the programme of training of field extension workers and
for the establishment, development and operation of such
centres, Colleges, research and experimental stations,
KVK's and Extension Education and other Training Centres
under the management of University or other institutions,
which are to be constituent units of that University and are
under its management and control.
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
58. Section 7 of the Act deals with the powers and
functions the University possesses. Sub-section (10) of
Section 7 of the Act confers expressly, on the University,
the power to create teaching, research and extension
education posts and also to appoint persons to such posts.
Sub-section (11) of Section 7 of the Act confers the power
on the University to create administrative and other posts
and to appoint persons to such posts.
59. It is therefore clear that the power to create both
teaching, administrative and other posts and appoint
persons to these posts lies within the exclusive domain of
the University. It is to be noticed here that this power to
appoint conferred under Sub-section (10) or (11) of
Section 7 of the Act is not made subject to any supervision
or control of the State Government.
60. Chapter VI of the Act provides for the Funds and
Accounts of the University.
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
61. Section 36 of the Act states that the University
should have a General fund and a Foundation Fund.
62. To the General Fund, it is mandated that the income
from fees, endowments and grants, if any, and income
from properties of the University including hostel,
experimental stations and farms shall be credited. Any
contributions or grants made by the Government or other
contributions, grants, donations, beneficial ones, loans and
other receipts are also to be a part of the General Fund.
63. To the Foundation's account, the contribution or
grants made by the Central Government or the State
Government or any approved agency are also required to
be credited. The Board is permitted to re-transfer such
amount that it may deem necessary from the Foundation
Fund to the General Fund.
64. In respect of any grant made by the Government,
the University is mandated to furnish statement of
accounts, reports and other particulars to the Government.
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
It is also obliged to take such action and furnish such
statements, accounts, reports and other particulars as
directed by the Government.
65. Thus, the funds of the University are a combination
of its own income, which is derived from various sources
and also from contributions or grants made by the
Government and other contributions, such as donations,
etc.
66. It will have to be emphasised here that only in
respect of the grants received from the Government, is the
University required to furnish the statement of accounts,
reports and other particulars relating to any grant made
by the Government and it is also obligated to take such
action or furnish statements, accounts, reports and other
particulars regarding the utilisation of any grant as
directed by the Government. This would indicate that
there is a certain degree of financial autonomy granted to
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
the University and it is not subject to absolute control by
the State Government.
67. Section 37 of the Act stipulates that the General,
Foundation and other funds are required to be managed in
accordance with the provisions laid down by the statutes.
68. Section 38 of the Act confers the power of the
Government to order auditing at any time to order an
audit of the accounts of the University by such auditors as
it may direct.
69. Thus, the Government has the power under the Act
to seek statements, accounts, reports etc., in respect of
the grants given by it and also to order an audit of the
accounts of the University. This indicates that the
Government has been conferred with the power to keep a
check on the way the funds of the University is derived
and also expended.
70. The Vice Chancellor, under Section 39 of the Act, is
required to cause to be prepared the financial estimates of
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
the University for the ensuing year and submit the same
to the Board for its approval. The Board is empowered to
approve the financial estimates, subject to such
modification as it deems fit. It is, however, made clear
that no expenditure should be incurred, except in
accordance with the financial estimates as approved by
the Board.
71. Therefore, it is clear that the funds of the University
are to be managed by the University itself and the
financial estimates that have been prepared would have to
be approved by the Board, once again establishing that
the University has a certain degree of financial autonomy
to manage its affairs.
72. It has to be noticed here that the Government really
does not get to have a say in the matter of expenditure
incurred by the University or in the financial estimates that
are prepared by the Vice Chancellor.
- 62 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
73. Section 40 of the Act casts an obligation on the
University to get the annual statement of accounts of the
University prepared by the Comptroller under the
directions of the Vice Chancellor in respect of the monies
accrued to or received by the University from whatever
source.
74. The annual accounts and the balance sheet are
required to be submitted by the Vice Chancellor to the
Government which in turn is required to cause an audit to
be carried out by such persons as it may appoint in that
regard and the audited accounts should be presented by
the Vice-Chancellor to the Board.
75. The Board is thereafter required to submit a copy of
the accounts and the audit report to the Government
along with the statement of action taken by the University
on the audit report, and the Government in turn is
required to place the same before both Houses of the
State Legislature.
- 63 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
76. What can be gathered from the provisions of Chapter
VI is that the Government can only have an overview of
the monies being spent by the University and it does not
really have any statutory powers under Chapter VI to
direct the manner in which the University should incur
expenditure to achieve the objects of the Act.
77. It is, no doubt, true that Section 10 of the Act does
confer the power on the Chancellor to issue directions
either suo motu or on the recommendation of the State
Government, which are necessary or expedient in the
interest of both administration and academic functioning of
the University, but there is no specific provision which
requires the approval of the Government for every
decision the University is required to take.
78. The power to have overall superintendence of the
accounts cannot lead to the inference that the Government
has a right to interfere with every policy decision taken by
the University.
- 64 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
79. It has to be noticed that the very purpose of
establishing the University is to grant autonomy to a Body
so as to ensure that the University functions in an effective
and appropriate manner.
80. Once the statute prescribes the manner in which the
University is to be run through various Authorities/Bodies,
such as Syndicates, Senates and other Councils, which are
prescribed in the Act itself, it is expected from the
Government that it allows the University to operate in an
autonomous way.
81. The Scheme of the Act would indicate that the
Government can intervene and recommend to the
Chancellor to issue directions in the interest of
administration and academic functioning of the University.
This power to recommendation to issue directions cannot
be construed as a power to over-turn the decisions of the
University, merely because the Government has a different
view in the matter.
- 65 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
82. Section 42 of the Act specifically deals with the
Government Grants and it mandates that the Government
should make non-lapsable lump-sum grants to the
University. These grants should not be less than the
estimated expenditure of pay and allowances of the staff,
contingencies, supplies and services of the University for
proper functioning of the University. It is also required to
make a grant to meet such additional items of expenditure
recurring and non-recurring as the State Government may
deem necessary for the proper functioning of the
University.
83. Sub-section (3) of Section 42 of the Act requires the
University to furnish statements, accounts, reports and
other particulars, as the State Government may require,
before any grant is made by the Government and in case,
the State Government were to issue any direction
regarding the statement of accounts or utilization of any
grant, the University is required to take action accordingly.
- 66 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
84. It is, therefore, clear from a reading of Section 42 of
the Act that the State Government has a right to require
statement of accounts, reports, etc., to be submitted to it
before any grant is made and the University is obliged to
take action in respect of any direction the Government
may issue in respect of the statement of accounts, reports
or regarding utilization of grants.
85. It is, therefore, implicit that the power of the State
Government would be available only if a grant is sought by
the University and the Government decides to give such
grant.
86. In light of this legal position, it is clear that if the
University decides to incur any expenditure out of its own
funds, the Government cannot really control or direct the
utilization of the funds. The Government, no doubt, can
cause an audit to be done and if it is of the view that
certain directions are required to be issued for the proper
functioning of the University, it can recommend to the
- 67 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
Chancellor to issue appropriate directions. The State
Government, therefore, would not have a direct
supervisory control over the policy decisions taken by the
University, especially when the expenditure to be incurred
out of its internal financial resources.
87. To put it in simple words, if the University decides to
expend its own money to meet the expenditure on the
posts that it proposes to create in exercise of the power
conferred on it, the State Government cannot really object
to the said decision.
88. It has to be noticed here that if the University
decides to create teaching or non-teaching staffs in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 7 of the
Act, the approval of the Government would not be
required. However, it is true that the Board of
Management under Section 13(2)(xiii) of the Act is
empowered to create the teaching and non-teaching posts
only with the approval of the State Government. Thus, the
- 68 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
creation of either teaching or non-teaching posts by the
Board does require the approval of the Government.
89. In this case, admittedly, 171 posts were created by
the Government itself by notifying the names of 171 daily-
wage employees as provided under the 2012 Act. By
virtue of the 2012 Act mandating that these 171
employees were to be paid the minimum time scale of
pay, the Government, in effect, had itself created those
171 posts and thus, the requirement of obtaining an
approval under Section 13(2)(xiii) stood automatically
granted. It also, therefore, follows, by the operation of the
2012 Act, that these 171 posts stood created with the
sanction of the Government.
90. The only major difference between the regular
employees of the University and the daily-wage employees
of the University, in terms of pay, was that the daily-wage
employee would be getting the minimum time scale of
pay, while the regular employees would be getting the
- 69 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
regular scales of pay. If the University had decided to
meet this difference in pay from its own internal
resources, without imposing any financial burden on the
State Government, it is simply unfathomable as to how the
State Government could oppose the decision of
regularisation of these daily-wage employees.
91. As narrated above, it is not in dispute that the Board
recommended the regularization of 128 daily-wage
employees on 05.01.2019, 04.06.2019, 16.12.2019,
03.03.2020 and 29.01.2020 and in all these
Resolutions/communications, the Board stated that the
financial expenditure to be incurred would be met
internally, the Board was also of the view that it would be
inhumane to refuse regularization in respect of these 128
daily-wage employees as they had already put in nearly
twenty-five to thirty years of service and most of them are
on the verge of retirement, while some have actually
retired.
- 70 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
92. In a situation in which the Board, which manages the
University noticed that these 128 employees had rendered
two-and-a half to three decades of services and those
employees were also being given minimum of the time
scale of pay and other allowances as per the provisions of
the 2012 Act, was of the view that it would be in the larger
interest of the University to have their services to be
regularised so as to ensure that no injustice is rendered to
them, such a decision cannot be said to be either arbitrary
irrational or illegal.
93. If the University decides to regularise the services of
its 128 daily-wage employees in order to ensure that the
interest of the University employees was safeguarded, the
State Government could not have intervened and sit in
judgment over a proposed policy decision of the Board.
94. The very purpose of creating the Board of
Management under the Act is to ensure that the Board
collectively decides what decision is in the best interest of
- 71 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
the University and what decision are not in the interest of
the University. If the Board is of the view that the
University would be benefitted by regularizing 128 of its
daily-wage employees who have served for nearly two-
and-a half to three decades, such a decision cannot be
said to be beyond its powers conferred under the Act.
95. The reasoning of the Government that the
regularization would contravene the mandate of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case, cannot be
accepted since the mandate cannot really be applied to the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
96. It has to be noticed here that in all the cases relating
to regularisation, including in Umadevi's case, the Apex
Court has taken the view that the Courts cannot issue a
direction for regularizing the persons who had been
appointed irregularly and/or in contravention with the
Recruitment Rules, since that amounted to flouting of the
Recruitment Rules, and aiding persons who have secured
- 72 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
appointment otherwise than in the manner prescribed
under the Recruitment Rules.
97. The Apex Court in Umadevi's case was not dealing
with a situation where the employer wanted to regularize
daily-wage employees and the Government was coming in
the way of regularisation. On the other hand, the Apex
Court was considering a situation where a daily-wage
employee was demanding that his services be regularised
by way of a judicial order, and in that context, the Apex
Court has decided that the Courts should not pass orders
for regularisation.
98. It is, no doubt, true that the recruitment to civil
posts will have to be done in accordance with the
Recruitment Rules. However, if the substantive provision
of an enactment confers power on the University to create
posts and if the Body, which is managing the entire
Institution, is of the view that it can bear the additional
expenditure, the Government cannot take refuge under
- 73 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
the decision rendered in Umadevi's case to deny
regularization.
99. It has to be also kept in mind that the Legislature
had enacted the 2012 Act with the overarching objective
of ensuring the daily-wage employees, who had put in
more than ten years of services and who could not be
regularized under Umadevi's case, were given the
benefits which were nearly equivalent to the benefits of a
regular employee. In a sense, the law enacted after
Umadevi's case itself envisaged the creation of additional
posts and sanction for payment of wages almost on par
with regular employees. The Government, instead of
considering this perspective, has misunderstood and
misconstrued the bar created for regularisation under
Umadevi's case.
100. To put it in simple terms, the State Government, by
enacting the 2012 Act, was treating all the daily-wage
employees who had worked for more than ten years,
- 74 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
almost on par with the regular employees and it was just
one step short of regularisation.
101. If an entity (such as the University) had decided to
bridge that gap and grant benefits to such an employee on
par with the regular Government employees, by
undertaking to bear the difference of cost, the State
Government would be wrong to refuse to grant its
consent.
102. It is, therefore, clear that the decision of the
Government, to refuse the consent by placing reliance on
Umadevi's case, cannot be sustained.
103. It has to be noticed here that the University had, in
fact, regularized the services of Sujatha Devi and others,
and the petitioners herein, along with others, were
claiming parity. Taking note of this particular fact, the
University had recommended regularization of the
remaining 128 employees.
- 75 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
104. Merely because the Court pointed out that two
contradictory standards were being adopted in respect of
identically situated employees, the University, in order to
undo the anomaly, could not have proceeded to withdraw
the order of regularization granted to Sujatha Devi and 16
others.
105. To view it in a different way, the University wanted
to regularise 128 employees in the same manner as it
regularised 17 of its employees. However, because the
Government refused to give its consent, it had decided to
drop the idea of regularising 128 employees while
continuing to uphold the order of regularization in respect
of 17 employees and paying their salaries out of their
funds. But the moment the University was confronted
with this situation of double standards, the University has
chosen to find the easiest way to escape its responsibility
and has not only refused to regularise the employees that
it originally wanted to regularise, but has also proceeded
to undo the order of regularisation that it had passed in
- 76 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
respect of 17 other employees. This conduct of the
University cannot be appreciated at all.
106. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malathi
Das3 has also held that if any one set of employees are
regularised on parity, similarly situated employees would
also be entitled to the same benefits. It is, thus, clear that
the refusal to regularise the 128 employees by the
University cannot be termed as being legal or proper.
107. Since the University has withdrawn the order of
regularisation passed in favour of Sujatha Devi and others
during the pendency of these petitions, by citing the
observations made during the course of arguments, it is
obvious that the said order cannot be sustained.
108. Consequently, the order directing the withdrawal of
the regularisation made in favour of petitioners cannot be
sustained, and are accordingly quashed.
Malathi Das (Retired) now P.B. Mahishy & Ors. v. Suresh & Ors., (2014) 13
SCC 249.
- 77 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
109. The points for consideration are answered
accordingly.
110. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed by
quashing the impugned orders and a direction is issued to
the University to regularise the services of the 128
employees and meet the financial expenditure that arise
out of this regularisation out of its own funds, as resolved
by it in its Resolutions.
111. This order of regularisation that is required to be
made in favour of the 128 employees would not require
the consent or sanction of the Government, since the
entire expenditure in this regard could be borne by the
University.
112. Having regard to the fact that the Board passed its
first Resolution to recommend the regularisation of 128
employees on 05.01.2019, the regularisation of the 128
employees (which includes these petitioners) shall be
made with effect from 05.01.2019.
- 78 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9738
113. The benefits to which the petitioners are entitled to
by virtue of this Order shall be computed and made over
to the petitioners within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
114. Since, the order of withdrawing regularization made
in favour of Sujatha Devi and others are quashed, the very
orders of regularisation passed in their favour shall stand
restored, and if there has been any reduction in their pay
or allowances made, the same shall be undone and given
to them within two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
115. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK/-
CT: SN
