Karnataka High Court
Sri Molasab S/O Mabubasab Asangi vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460
WP No. 107564 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107564 OF 2025 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MOLASAB S/O. MABUBASAB ASANGI
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC PENSIONER,
R/O. NEAR BILAL MAZID,
BANAHATTI (RURAL), BAGALKOT-587311.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
MANJANNA 3. THE DEUPTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT
E DIST: BAGALKOT-587311.
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E 4. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI TOWN PLANNING
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA AUTHORITY BANAHATTI,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.27 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
17:05:41 +0530
DIST. BAGALKOT-587311.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS BE ISSUED DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE
REGULARISATION OF SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER FROM
16.03.1996 TILL HIS RETIREMENT 14.11.2024 WITH ALL SERVICE
BENEFITS AS THE STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. THAT THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460
WP No. 107564 of 2025
HC-KAR
SERVICE BENEFITS LIKE REGULAR INCREMENTS, LIVE BENEFITS, LIVE
IN CASH MINT BENEFITS, ETC TO BE PAID WITH INTERESTS, THAT
THE EX-GRATIA PAYMENTS, PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE BE
ORDER TO BE PAID TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation for regularization of his service from the date on which he attained the qualifying period and to extend all consequential services and retirement benefits in accordance with law.
Brief facts:
2. The petitioner was engaged by the respondent-
Town Planning Authority in the year 1996 as a D-group daily wage employee. From the date of initial engagement, he continued in uninterrupted service till retirement on 14.11.2024. During the tenure, the petitioner discharged duties connected with regular functioning of the Town -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR Planning Authority. It is stated that the nature of work performed by him was continuous and perennial and not seasonal or casual. It is stated that he has completed the qualifying period prescribed for consideration of regularization during the service tenure. That the representation seeking regularization and extension of consequential benefits including fixation of pay with increments has been denied. It is stated that respondent No.4-Town Planning Authority and the higher authorities including the Under Secretary and Director of Town Planning recommended his case for favourable consideration. It is stated that the Government circulars dated 19.09.2014 and 10.01.2020 provide the temporary employees completing more than 10 years of continuous service are entitled for minimum wages allowances, ex-gratia and other benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has rendered nearly 3 decades of continuous service, which is not disputed by the respondents. It is submitted that the work discharged by the petitioner is -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR perennial, regular and essential and not project based or temporary in nature. It is further submitted that the respondents have taken the work from the petitioner equivalent to that of a regular employees, but denied regularization and service benefits, which amounts to unfair labour practice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shripal and Another Vs. Bagar Nigam, Ghaziarbad1 (Shripal), to contend that the indefinite engagement of employees on temporary or daily wages for perennial work is contrary to law and fairness and also relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. Junjappa Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Others2 (P. Junjappa).
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State contends that the petitioner was never 1 Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024 D.D 31.01.2025 2 W.P.No.6238/2020 c/w 48123/2019 D.D 17.03.2025 -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR appointed to the sanctioned post. His engagement was purely as a daily wage scheme based worker (sevaka) under the Rabakavi-Banhatti Town Planning Authority. The appointment was not through due recruitment process nor against a sanctioned vacancy and that the petitioner cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. The administrative correspondences recommending regularization are merely internal communications of the authority, and such recommendations constitute neither approvals nor binding sanctions for regularization. Further, it is submitted that the Government circular applied to employees appointed against sanctioned posts, following lawful procedure with Government approval. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Others3 (Uma Devi), to contend that no daily wage or temporary employee appointed without a sanction post and under due process, cannot seek regularization. 3 (2006) 4 SCC 1 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. It is undisputed that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1996 and continued his service till 2024. The continuity of service for nearly 28 years stands established and is not seriously disputed by the respondents. The nature of duties performed by the petitioner clearly demonstrates that the work was perennial and continuous. The petitioner was engaged in routine and essential functions of the Town Planning Authority, which is a day to day administration and could not have been carried on. Such work cannot be categorized as casual or temporary. The Apex Court in the case of Shripal, has held that labels like, "temporary", "casual", "contractual", are irrelevant when the nature of work is perennial, continuous and under direct control of the employer. Further, it has held that the public authorities engaging workers in essential Municipal functions for decades, while denying statutory benefits -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR amounts to unfair labour practices and held at paragraph No.15 as under:
"15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records--despite directions to do so--allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
.........
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. In the present case, the petitioner has put in service for nearly 3 decades i.e., nearly 28 years of continuous service in essential public functions. The Apex Court has categorically held that indefinite engagement of employees on a temporary or daily wage basis for perennial work is contrary to law and fairness, and the Uma Devi's case cannot be invoked to perpetuate exploitative arrangements. Labels such as "daily wage" or "temporary", lose significance where the work is continuous and identical to that of a regular employee. The P. Junjappa's case is squarely applies to the present facts. The rigid application of Uma Devi's case stands diluted by decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L.Kesari and Other4 (M.L.Kesari) and subsequent decisions, as reiterated by the Division Bench and it was held that at paragraph Nos.9 to 15 as under:
"9. Upon meticulous examination of the impugned judgment of KSAT and a comprehensive consideration of the arguments advanced by both the sides, this Court finds that, the 4 (2010) 9 SCC 247
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR Tribunal has committed multiple errors in law and on facts, resulting in grave injustice to the petitioner. The following points highlight the fundamental infirmities in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal.
A. Erroneous application of Umadevi judgment:
10. The Tribunal's reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi (supra) is misplaced, as it has been applied in a rigid and mechanical manner without considering the subsequent clarification by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.L.Kesari (supra). The decision in M.L.Kesari (supra) categorically stipulate that, employees who have completed ten years of service in sanctioned post prior to the pronouncement of Umadevi (supra) are entitled to regularization. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that 'those who rendered over ten years of service in sanctioned post should not be deprived of regularization merely due to the procedural delays on the part of the authority'. In this case, it is a specific plea of the petitioner that, he is in continuous service of Forest Department as a Watcher/Driver and his service is on par with the regular employees and he has been engaged in the said services right from the date of his appointment as a daily wager. This fact is not denied specifically by the respondents. Non- appreciation of continuous service of more than 30 years squarely falls within the protective ambit of the principle laid down in aforesaid judgment. The learned Tribunal has failed to evaluate the substantial evidence furnished by the petitioner including his salary records, service certificates and official departmental correspondences which unequivocally establish his continuous and uninterrupted employment. The absence of a
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR formal appointment order should not in itself, negate the legitimate rights of an employee who has been continuously engaged in service.
B. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:
11. 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.
12. The Tribunal's refusal to consider this prayer of the petitioner on the pretext that, he did not produce certified copies of such order is legally untenable. The burden of proof should lie upon the respondents, who are the custodians of all relevant records, thereby, there shall not be any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution with regard to prayer made by the petitioner.
C. Unjustified rejection on the grounds of delay:
13. The learned KSAT has erred in dismissing the claim solely on the ground of delay. It is well settled that, delay cannot be the sole criterion to deny service benefits, particularly when an employee has been continuously engaged by the Government. The delay, if any is attributable to the respondents' failure to regularize his services rather than any inaction on the part of the petitioner. It is well settled that, denial of the legitimate rights without justification amounts to violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. The respondents have failed to provide
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR any cogent reasons for differential treatment meted out to the petitioner vis-à-vis similarly situated employees. Thus, by filing this petition, the principles of equity and justice are prayed by the petitioner which necessitated him to seek relief so sought.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 has observed in para.20 as under:
"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..."
15. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.5873/2025 in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR and Ors. Vs. Abdul Rehman Khanday and Ors. decided on 7.3.2025 at para.2 of its judgment observed with regard to the conduct of the State Officials/authorities in considering the similar prayers of the daily wagers therein who had sought regularization of their services which reads as follows:
"At the very outset, we are constrained to observe that the present case is a glaring and textbook example of obstination exhibited by the state officials/authorities, who consider themselves to be above and beyond the reach of law. The inaction of the officers of the petitioner - Union Territory, who took about 16 years to comply with a simpliciter High Court order passed on 03.05.2007, is shocking and prima facie contemptuous.
3. However, what concerns us is not the delay of decades alone, but also the incontrovertible fact that the poor respondents, being daily wage workers, have been repeatedly harassed by the petitioners by passing cryptic orders, thereby overlooking the true import and spirit of the order dated 03.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. In such facts and circumstances, the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court including the imposition of symbolic cost does not warrant any interference by this Court."
9. The Apex Court in Shripal's case has held that Uma Devi's case does not apply mechanically and the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR appointments which are irregular but not illegal, coupled with longstanding service, deserve equitable consideration and held at paragraph No.14 as under:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractorbased arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices."
10. The indefinite continuation of daily wage employment for perennial work is contrary to law and fairness. In the present case, the respondents have extracted work from the petitioner for nearly 3 decades thereby acknowledging the necessity and continuity of the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR post and cannot now be permitted to deny regularization of technical grounds.
11. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of.
ii. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation for regularization of service from the date on which he attained the qualifying period, till the date of his retirement and extend all the consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay, annual increments, continuity of service and all admissible retirement and pensionary benefits, strictly in accordance with law and in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shripal and Division Bench of this Court in P. Junjappa's case.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2460 WP No. 107564 of 2025 HC-KAR iii. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44