The Karnataka High Court has partly allowed the petitions filed by 1,131 licensed surveyors in the Department of Survey, Settlement, and Land Records by ordering the State Government to settle their claims and compensate them according to the Government Order dated 12.08.2008, after verifying the additional work they have completed.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar observed that, "the Government in terms of 2008 Order extracted the work from these candidates in addition to what they were required to do in accord with their Job Chart, as already observed above. Respondents cannot be selective in implementing the said Order in the sense that, they can extract the additional work and still they will not pay for it. It has to take the rose with thorn, to put it metaphorically."

The appellants filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking regularisation of their services and financial benefits comparable to Second Division Surveyors, Grade II. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal directed the government to consider their representation within six months. In 2008, the government issued an executive order following this direction.

The government opposed the appeal, arguing that the appellants' pay comes from the beneficiaries of their services, not the state treasury. Despite performing public functions, the appellants were not considered civil servants and, therefore, were not entitled to salaries equivalent to regular state government employees.

The High Court observed that, "It is not the case of Respondents that none of the Appellants has done the additional work. After all, what is claimed is for their blood & sweat which have a price. Therefore, the amount payable to the workers like Licensed Surveyors assumes the character of property, constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A, and its retention by the Government is in breach of this guarantee."

It was also emphasized that where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words ‘forced labour’ under Article 23 of the Constitution, and in that vein, further observed that, "even the convicts serving the sentence in the jail cannot be denied some reward in cash. That is the sanctity which our evolved system attaches to the human labour & dignity. This aspect of the matter ought to have weighed with learned Single Judge, however, somehow, it was lost sight of."

Cause Title: KB Lokesh & Ors. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice Krishna S DixitJustice Ramchandra D HuddarLicense

Ananya Soni