HC Grants Regular Pay Scale to Daily-Wage Civil Engineer After Illegal Termination

Case Details: Mohammad Javeed Mahmood vs. State of Karnataka - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 84 (Karnataka)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Suraj Govindaraj & Dr Chillakur Sumalatha, JJ.
• S. S. Halalli, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Smt. Maya T.R., HCGP & Venkatesh C. Mallabadi, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, a Graduate Civil Engineer, was engaged on a daily wage basis in a Taluk Panchayat on 01.08.1986. His services were terminated without notice with effect from 01.10.1987. He challenged the termination before the Labour Court, which, by award dated 08.04.2002, held that he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year and that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with. Accordingly, the Labour Court set aside the oral termination and directed reinstatement within four weeks, without granting any other relief.

The employer’s writ petition was dismissed on 03.06.2003, and the petitioner was reinstated on 19.12.2003. He continued to work thereafter and sought regularisation and monetary benefits. However, by order dated 13.04.2016, the authorities rejected his claim for regularisation and monetary benefits, while stating that he was entitled only to Rs. 238 per day as per the revised departmental Schedule of Rates.

On appeal, the claim of the petitioner was again rejected by communication dated 16.01.2017 on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 under the applicable Government Order. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi Bench, seeking quashing of the communication dated 16.01.2017 and directions to grant regularisation along with consequential benefits. The Tribunal, by order dated 18.03.2021, rejected the application.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that, had the illegal termination not been effected by the employer, the petitioner would have completed not merely 10 years of service required for regularisation, but nearly 19 years of service. Therefore, the Court held that the entire fault lay with the employer and that the petitioner could not be made to suffer for the lapse on the part of the employer.

The High Court further observed that, except with regard to payment of wages, the petitioner had been treated by the employer as a regular employee for all practical purposes, and his services had been continuously utilised for around 16 years even after reinstatement pursuant to the Labour Court’s award, which had been affirmed by the High Court. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal was held to be unsustainable.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to fixation of pay at the minimum of the regular pay scale in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2007, along with release of consequential monetary benefits in accordance with the said pay scale.

List of Cases Referred to

• SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMA DEVI 2006 taxmann.com 2495/[2006] 109 FLR 826 (SC) (para 6)
• State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh [Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013, dated 26-10-2016] (para 10).