The Karnataka High Court held that mere attainment of superannuation cannot extinguish a legitimate claim for regularization of services where an employee has served for decades against a sanctioned post, received recommendations for regularization, and witnessed similarly situated employees being regularized. The Court set aside the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition, directing regularization of the appellant's services with effect from completion of ten years of service and all consequential benefits, including full reckoning of 34 years of service for pension and terminal benefits.
Background & Facts
The Genesis of the Claim
The appellant, Smt. Geeta Ramappa Terdal, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, entered government service on 08-06-1988 as a Typist against a duly sanctioned and vacant post earmarked for the reserved category. Her appointment was pursuant to a selection process initiated by the respondent-State through the Employment Exchange. She reported to duty and continued to discharge the functions of a Typist under the establishment of the third respondent - Directorate of Municipal Administration.
Service Journey and Claims for Regularization
After rendering nearly 24 years of uninterrupted service, the appellant staked her claim for regularization. Her claim received the recommendation of the very establishment under which she had been serving, along with the claims of several other daily-wage employees similarly placed. The Municipal Council, Dandeli, on 04-10-2006, recommended her case for regularization. This recommendation was followed by another communication on 23-07-2009, which also recommended her case for regularization.
Administrative Proceedings and Omission
On 25-01-2016, pursuant to the recommendations made by the Municipal Council seeking regularization of employees engaged on daily wages, a list comprising 26 names was forwarded to the competent authority for consideration. Of the 26 employees so recommended, 12 came to be regularized. The appellant, however, was conspicuously left out, notwithstanding her long years of service, the recommendation made in her favour by the very establishment under which she was working, and the claim for regularization founded upon documents whose authenticity is not in dispute.
Superannuation and Litigation
The appellant continued to discharge the duties of a Typist and later a Computer Operator without the dignity and security of regular employment. Ultimately, in June 2022, the appellant attained the age of superannuation and was made to retire after rendering 34 long years of service, all of which stood branded as daily-wage service. Aggrieved by the denial of regularization, she instituted W.P.No.105093 of 2022 before the learned Single Judge, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize her services with all consequential benefits.
Procedural History
- 08.06.1988: Appellant appointed as Typist against sanctioned vacant post through Employment Exchange selection process
- 04.10.2006: Municipal Council, Dandeli recommended appellant's case for regularization
- 23.07.2009: Second recommendation for regularization forwarded by Municipal Council
- 25.01.2016: List of 26 names forwarded for regularization consideration; 12 regularized, appellant excluded
- June 2022: Appellant attained superannuation and retired from service
- W.P.No.105093/2022: Original writ petition filed before Single Judge seeking mandamus for regularization
- 29.08.2025: Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding claim for regularization does not arise after superannuation
- Present writ appeal filed challenging the Single Judge's order
Relief Sought in Writ Petition
The appellant sought: a. Issuance of appropriate order/direction/writ in nature of mandamus directing respondents to regularize her services with consequential benefits in interest of justice and equity b. Such other orders that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper c. Costs of the writ petition
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the mere efflux of time culminating in superannuation could render an otherwise subsisting claim for regularization otiose, particularly when the appellant had served the State for 34 long years and sought consequential benefits flowing from such regularization. More specifically, the Court had to determine whether an employee who entered service through the Employment Exchange against a sanctioned vacancy, continued to serve the State for decades, received recommendations for regularization, and witnessed similarly situated employees being regularized, could be denied even consideration of her claim solely because she had, in the meantime, attained the age of superannuation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that merely because an employee has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, the law is not that the claim of such employees would vanish in thin air. He submitted that the appellant completed 34 years of service and had all recommendations from the powers that be for regularization of services. He argued that the order of the learned Single Judge, on the face of it, is erroneous and sought the relief that had been sought before the learned Single Judge - regularization of services of the appellant with consequential benefits. He relied on the principle that the State, having initiated the process of appointment, utilized the services of the appellant for decades, recommended her regularization and regularized others similarly situated, cannot now deny her the same benefit by invoking the very passage of time during which her claim remained unattended.
For the Respondent/State
The learned High Court Government Pleader sought to defend the action of the learned Single Judge, not on the reason so rendered by the learned Single Judge, but on the score that the appellant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation and judgment in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI(3) would come in the way of regularization of services of the appellant, as the appellant was appointed as a daily wage employee, albeit pursuant to the calling of names from the Employment Exchange, conduct of an interview and a sanctioned vacant post. The State would thus seek to place the judgment in the case of UMADEVI as an insurmountable legal impediment to the claim of the appellant.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the dates and sequence of events forming the links in the chain that culminated in the claim of the appellant are not in dispute. It then undertook a comprehensive examination of the evolution of the law on regularization, beginning with the judgment of the Constitution Bench in UMADEVI (State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1).
The Court quoted paragraph 53 of UMADEVI, which clarifies that in cases of irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts who have worked for ten years or more without the intervention of court or tribunal orders, the question of regularization may have to be considered on merits. The Court emphasized that the object of UMADEVI was to prevent illegal appointments and backdoor entries into public employment, and not to furnish the State with a convenient shield to perpetuate arbitrary treatment of employees who had rendered long and continuous service.
The Court then examined subsequent judgments that elucidated the principles of UMADEVI. It noted that in SHEO NARAIN NAGAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, the Apex Court lamented that UMADEVI was being wielded as a convenient instrument to perpetuate injustice by continuing employees in service without regularization and in some cases, even without payment of lawful wages. In NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND, the Apex Court cautioned that the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing employees appointed through irregular means, if allowed to persist, would subvert the very intent of the Constitution Bench in UMADEVI.
The Court then turned to the specific facts of the case. It found that the appellant's appointment was neither fortuitous nor through any backdoor arrangement. It was pursuant to a process of selection undertaken by the respondent-State by calling for names from the Employment Exchange, against a duly sanctioned and vacant post. This distinction assumes significance in the consideration of the appellant's claim for regularization.
The Court noted that the appellant thereafter continued to serve the said Municipality for nearly 18 years, discharging the duties entrusted to her with an expectation that the long years of service would eventually receive recognition in the form of regularization. It found it significant that out of 26 employees recommended for regularization, 12 were regularized while the appellant was left out, notwithstanding her long years of service and the recommendation made in her favour.
The Court then addressed the State's reliance on UMADEVI. It held that UMADEVI cannot be construed as imposing an absolute and inflexible embargo upon regularization in every conceivable circumstance. The Court drew a distinction between a claim founded upon the one-time exception under paragraph 53 of UMADEVI and a claim founded upon equal treatment under an existing policy of regularization. Where the State has consciously regularized one class of employees, it cannot arbitrarily exclude other employees who are identically situated in the matter of appointment, nature of duties, length of service and eligibility. Such selective regularization would fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court further emphasized that the State, as a model employer, cannot extract labour for decades, hold out assurances of regularization and thereafter invoke technicalities to defeat the legitimate expectations of its employees. It found that the State, having engaged the appellants prior to 1st April, 1993, utilized their services continuously for decades, and having itself framed and implemented a Cabinet policy regularizing nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers, cannot now exclude the appellants by taking shelter behind a rigid or technical reading of UMADEVI. In absence of any cogent distinction or reasoned decision justifying such exclusion, the action of the State is manifestly arbitrary and inconsistent with its obligation to function as a model employer.
The Court concluded that the appellant is entitled to a direction for regularization of her services with consequential service and retiral benefits, to be worked out in accordance with the applicable rules, as justice must not merely recognize a wrong but must, where the facts and law so warrant, furnish an effective remedy for that wrong.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded in her writ appeal. The Court set aside the order dated 29-08-2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.105093 of 2022. The appellant is entitled to regularization of her services in the cadre in which she was working at the time of attaining the age of superannuation, with effect from the date on which she completed ten years of service, i.e., 11-02-1998, together with all consequential benefits. The entire period of 34 years of service rendered by the appellant shall be reckoned for the purpose of determination and computation of pension, gratuity and all other admissible terminal and retiral benefits. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders regularizing the services of the appellant and giving effect to the directions within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of failure to comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated period, the appellant shall, in addition to the benefits directed hereinabove, become entitled to arrears of wages quantified at 50% of the salary entitlement flowing from such regularization.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Legitimate Expectation Trumps Technical Defences
Once the State consciously implements a policy to regularize a particular class of employees, it cannot arbitrarily exclude other identically situated employees from the benefit of that policy. Such selective implementation violates the equality mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution and constitutes manifest arbitrariness. Practitioners must now argue that administrative lapses or clerical omissions cannot justify differential treatment when the State has already extended a benefit to a similarly situated class.
Superannuation Does Not Extinguish Subsisting Claims
The mere attainment of superannuation cannot, by itself, become a reason to defeat accrued service-related entitlements or to decline consideration of a claim that had arisen during the currency of employment. The right to seek consideration of regularization, where otherwise available in law, does not evaporate into thin air upon the employee crossing the threshold of superannuation. Retirement may bring the relationship of employment to an end, but it does not necessarily bring to an end the legal consequences of an unlawful denial of benefits during that employment.
State's Obligation as Model Employer
The State, as a model employer, is under a heightened constitutional obligation to ensure that its actions are just, reasonable and non-arbitrary. It cannot retain employees on daily wages for the greater part of their working lives, deny them the security of regular employment, and thereafter compel them to spend the evening of their lives in the corridors of Courts seeking recognition of services rendered over decades. Constitutional governance demands fairness in administrative action before litigation becomes inevitable.
