Post Lasting For More Than 20 Yrs Can’t Be Temporary; A Premium Institute’s ‘Heart’ Is Not In Right Place While Treating Employees: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court while slamming a Medical Institute has held that a post lasting for more than 20 years, cannot be considered to be a temporary one.
The Court held thus in petitions preferred by ten Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) working in Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, who challenged its endorsement by which it denied their request for regularization.
A Single Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda observed, “A premium institute which has been established to take care of the problems related to the heart and nurse diseased hearts to good health is, however, acting in a very unhealthy manner and is indicating its heart is not in the right place when it comes to treating its employees. … It is no doubt true that the Bye-laws as well as the Rules and Regulations of the Institute do provide for appointment of temporary posts, but a post cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as temporary if it lasts for more 20-30 years, and if this entire working period of 20-30 years is treated as being temporary, that would be a travesty of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”
The Bench said that the Institute, which is an instrumentality of the State, is required to be a model employer and the Institute which is governed by the Governing Council headed by the Chief Minister and co-chaired by the Minister of Health, is required to ensure that Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) are treated fairly and are not exploited.
Advocate Ranganatha S. Jois represented the petitioners while Additional Advocate General (AAG) V.G. Bhanu Prakash and Senior Advocate D.L. Jagadeesh represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioners (10 in number) working as Staff Nurses on a stipendiary basis in the respondent institute, were appointed between 2004 and 2007. They challenged the endorsement issued by the institute, denying their request for regularization. In 2004, an advertisement was issued, calling for applications for filling up the posts of Staff Nurses (Stipendiary). The petitioners being appointed, were paid a stipend of Rs. 3,000/- per month. One of the terms of appointment was that the appointees were to execute an agreement to the effect that they would serve for a period of two years, failing which action would be taken as per the Rules of the Institute.
As per the petitioners, pursuant to their appointment, though their initial appointment was stated to be for a limited time, they were discharging their work as Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) for the past two decades. Hence, it was their contention that they were entitled to be treated as regular employees and all the benefits that are available to a ‘Regular Staff Nurse’ should also be provided to them. They further contended that they cannot be Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) perpetually, especially when they have admittedly been discharging the same work that the ‘Regular Staff Nurses’ were discharging. They also submitted that when the same work has been extracted from them as ‘Regular Staff Nurses’, the payment of a lesser salary and denial of the benefits that are given to such ‘Regular Staff Nurses’ amounts to a breach of the accepted constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work”.
The High Court after hearing the contentions from both sides, remarked, “I am thus of the opinion that the Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) who have discharged the same work will have to be treated alike. If one set of Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) are regularized and the other set are not regularized, despite the resolutions of the Governing Council dated 25.07.2001 and 14.11.2005, there cannot be a greater example of blatant discrimination than this.”
The Court added that, if the State Government accorded sanction for the creation of posts of Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) consistently keeping in mind the requirement of the Institute; and when the affidavit of the Under Secretary to the Government indicates that a total of 898 posts were approved to be filled up on contract basis, it becomes absolutely clear that there was sanction to create the posts of Staff Nurse (Stipendiary) all through the years and the Institute cannot now contend that there is no sanction to the posts of Staff Nurses (Stipendiary).
“It is to be stated here that there is actually no requirement of obtaining sanction from the Government under the Bye-laws or the Rules and Regulations of the Institute. The Bye-laws and the Rules and Regulations only contemplate the approval of the Governing Council and if the Governing Council has approved the appointment, the posts automatically become sanctioned posts, with or without the approval of the State Government. It is also to be kept in mind that the Governing Council is chaired by the Hon’ble Chief Minister — the highest authority in the State and, therefore, it will have to be assumed that there was sanction accorded for appointment of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and their so-called renewal with a day’s break would also constitute a clear sanction to their continuance”, it further emphasised.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have worked for more than 20 years, the Court said that it would be just and necessary to direct the respondents to regularize the services of petitioners from the date they completed 10 years of service. It also clarified that the respondents shall not take into consideration the renewal break of a day or two while computing this period of 10 years.
“Though under normal circumstances the petitioners, by virtue of this order of regularization, would be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, having regard to the financial implications that would entail on the State Government, it would be appropriate to hold that the petitioners would be entitled for arrears of wages only from the date of filing of these petitions i.e., from 15/16.06.2023”, it observed.
The Court concluded that the petitioners would be entitled for other financial benefits, in addition to being treated as regular employees on par with the Permanent Staff Nurses with effect from the date that they completed 10 years of their service and shall also be granted the same benefits that are granted to Permanent Staff Nurses, both during their service and after their service.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions.
Cause Title- B.J. Rani & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:40339)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Ranganatha S. Jois
Respondents: AAG V.G. Bhanu Prakash, Senior Advocate D.L. Jagadeesh, AGA V. Hemalatha, and Advocate Rakshitha D.J.
