Read Time: 09 minutes

Justice Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court while ordering for regularisation of certain Bangalore University employees remarked that, “If the claim of these employees for regularisation is not considered after having extracted work for them for 24 years, it would amount to exploitation.”

The Court ordered the above in a writ petition challenging a 2016 order which which denied them benefits of regularisation.

The petition also sought the directions of the Court to the University to regularise the employees.

The petitioners' case was that 20 of them were appointed between December 1996 and June 2000 for services in Group-D cadre of Bangalore University.

The order further noted that the qualifications of the employees range from sixth standard to graduation. The petitioners were appointed in the library, finance department, hostels, estate section, student welfare department among other sections.

The Court noted that these petitioners were appointed when they were between 23 to 25 years of age and now all of them are over 40 years of age. 

It also noted that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, there was an attempt by the University to regularise certain employees, however the government responded to the University’s request noting that a financial burden of over Rs. 1 crore would be incurred.

It further informed the University that the salaries for the employees proposed to be regularised must be borne by the University and not by the government.

Upon receiving such a communication, the Court noted that the University did a ‘volte-face’ and withdrew its earlier proposal to regularise these employees.

The Court on hearing the submission of the parties and taking into consideration the material available on record, observed that the Supreme Court in many of its judgments indicated that regularisation of employees is not a concept that should be given a go by on account of such minor consideration but it should be looked at on several parameters.

The Court noted that, "One  unmistakable  stream  that  runs through judicial thinking of judgments of the Apex Court is that regularization  of employees engaged to work for the  State  for long years should be considered, failing which it  would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court further held that, if the claim of the claim for regularisation of these employees is not considered, it would amount to leaving such employees in the lurch after having extracted work from them for close to 24 years.

It said, “Services of these employees have been utilised in their energetic youth, have  travelled  this  far and  are at this age, if they are not now considered for regularisation, it would amount to exploitation of such labour from the hands of  the University, a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court noted that such action of the University is unbecoming of its status of a State under the Constitution of India and observed that it is not the University that is denying the benefit of regularisation, but the State Government which is declining to accept their claim on an irrelevant plea of financial burden of rupees one crore thirty six lakhs.

The correspondences/ recommendation/ proposal of the University to the state, would go on to  mean that the petitioners who were all appointed by the University close to 20 years ago, these petitioners have continued to work, in and for the University without any break.

The Court further noted that the petitioners in their heydays toiled to serve the University on receiving even paltry sums as salary and that the need of these employees by the University is that of regularisation.

The Court noted that “If their cases are not considered at this juncture, it would be an arbitrary  action, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and would result in leaving the employees in the  lurch.  The  buoyancy of hope that the petitioners have all along carried with them should not again be turned by the respondents into  a  fatigue of despair. The State and the University cannot display a hands-off to their obligation, to consider the cases of the petitioners.”

Cause Title: Hanumantharayappa vs Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department