STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus M.L. KESARI & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 03-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 543 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
v. 
M.L. KESARI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6208 of 2010) 
AUGUST 3, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Labour Laws - Regularization - Daily wage workers -
Continuance in service for 15 years, without intervention of 
court/tribunal - Writ petition seeking regularization - Allowed C 
by single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court - In 
*Uma Devi's case, constitution Bench of Supreme Court gave 
exception to the general rule against regularization holding 
that irregular appointments of the employees having 10 years 
service or more without intervention for the Court/tribunal to 
D 
be regularized on one time measure within six months from 
the date of the judgment - Instant case was not considered 
within six months from the date of judgment in Uma Devi's 
case -
Held: Employer not undertaking exercise of 
regularization within six months of Umadevi's case, does not E 
disentitle the employees, the right to be considered for 
regularization in terms of the directions in Umadevi's case -
Direction to the employer to consider the cases of the 
appellant-employees within six months as a one time 
regularization exercise. 
F 
Respondents 1 to 3 were appointed on daily wage 
basis by the appellant-Zila Panchayat. They were 
continued as daily wagers for more than 15 years and 
such continuance was without any intervention of a court 
and without the protection of any interim orders of any 
G 
court or tribunal. Thereafter, they filed writ petitions 
seeking regularization of their services. Single Judge of 
High Court allowed the petition directing to consider their 
543 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A representation. The writ appeals thereagainst, were 
dismissed by the Division Bench of High Court, holding 
that the respondent would be entitled to regularization, 
depending upon the terms and conditions of 
appointment, availability of existing substantive 
B vacancies, eligibility, qualifications, continuity of service, 
seniority and the prevailing rules. Therefore, the instant 
appeal was filed. The appeal was adjourned to await the 
decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi's case. 
c 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It has been held in Uma Devi's case that 
appointments made without due process or the rules 
relating to appointment did not confer any right upon 
appointees for regularization. However, in Para 53 of the 
D judgment, the Court made an exception to the general 
rule against regularization, holding that irregular (not 
illegal) appointments, where employees have continued 
in service for ten years or more without the intervention 
of courts or tribunals, have to be considered on merits, 
E as a one time measure within six months from the date 
of the decision i.e. 10.4.2006. [Paras 4 and 5] [548-G-H; 
550-B-G] 
1.2 The object behind the direction in Para 53 of 
Umadevi's case, is two-fold. First is to ensure that those 
F 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 
G 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 
H 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. M.L. KESARI & 
545 
ORS. 
provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The 
A 
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 
B 
considered for regularization. The fact that the employer 
has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within 
six months of the decision in Umadevi's case or that such 
exercise was undertaken only with regard to a limited few, 
will not disentitle such employees, the right to be c 
considered for regularization in terms of the above 
directions in Umadevi's case as a one-time measure. 
[Para 8) [551-H; 552-A-E] 
1.3 At the end of six months from the date of decision 
in Umadevi's case, cases of several daily-wage

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.