AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. H.R. Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. I. Lyngwa, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State respondents.
Vide order dated 02.07.2019, the learned GA sought time to file the affidavit with regard to the claim for regularization of the petitioners. An additional affidavit has been filed today and learned GA has drawn this Court's attention to Para 1 of the said affidavit and submits that the matter concerning the consideration for regularization of the services of the petitioners is still pending with the cabinet.
In both these matters, it can be seen that the petitioner No. 1 has been serving in the post of Chowkidar since 01.09.1995 and the petitioner No. 2 has been serving in the post of Chowkidar since 04.08.1995. In view of this stated position, the respondents who are already actively considering the regularization of the services of the petitioners, shall take into account the years of service put in by the petitioners, which will make them eligible to be covered by the exception of Para 53 as given in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors: (2006) 4 SCC 1. Further, it is to be noted that the case of the petitioners will also come within the scope of such consideration as per the judgment rendered in the State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors: (2010) 9 SCC 247 at Para 11, wherein it was held that such persons could still be considered, while reiterating Uma Devi, but distinguishing the prescribed period of 6(six) months commencing from 10.04.2006.
Para 11 of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors: (2010) 9 SCC 247 which is relevant is quoted herein below:
"11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure."
(emphasis supplied)
As such, it is accordingly directed that the services of the petitioners be considered for regularization expeditiously moreso, in view of the fact that the respondents have in the affidavit itself stated that their regularization is under consideration. It is however hoped that the said process be completed at the earliest and the benefits of service be duly accorded, considering the fact that the petitioner No. 1 joined her service since 01.09.1995 and the petitioner No. 2 joined her service since 04.08.1995.
With the following directions, the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.