Table of Contents
The State government and its instrumentalities have systematically engaged in conscious exploitation and abuse of constitutional and statutory rights conferred on the citizens seeking public employment, the High Court of Karnataka has said.
Justice M.G.S. Kamal made these observations while noticing the conduct of the State government in leaving a petitioner-woman, who was employed on a contract basis, in the lurch without any statutory protection after having made her work for about a decade.
The Court said the present case is a classic case of such a brazen act by the State government even after a series of cautions and deprecations by the apex court and various High Courts on such attitude by the States.
Appointed 10 years ago
The court found that the Department of Agriculture had appointed 30-year-old petitioner Baligar Chandbi of Huvinahadagali in Vijayapura district, as an accountant at Raitha Samparka Kendra, Huvinahadagali, in May 2014, on a contract basis through a manpower service providing agency.
The State authorities, who in May 2023, had allowed her to go on maternity leave till August 31, 2023, to her shock and dismay, not only did not allow her to rejoin duty on the pretext that another service of another person had been availed through an agency but also claimed that she was not entitled to maternity leave as she was not a direct employee of the State.
However, from the records, the court found that though she was appointed on a contract basis through an agency for one year, her service was continued for nearly ten years, that is, till she opted for maternity leave in May 2023, without there being any renewal of the contract. The court also noted that she was regularly paid a salary every month till the authorities did not allow her to join back to duty after opting for maternity leave.
Uninterrupted service
Even though the government continued her service for 10 years without interruption, it has strangely claimed that her contract was through the agency that provided manpower in 2014, and her contract was not continued through any other agencies that provided manpower services by participating in the annual tender, the court pointed out.
Wondering why she was continued in the job even though she was not among the employees, services of whom were provided by the new agencies, with which the government had signed agreements in the subsequent years till 2023-24, the court said that this implies that she was subsequently continued on employment directly, and not through any agency.
As the government did not produce records sought by the court on her appointment and renewal of contracts every year, contracts with different agencies, etc., Justice Kamal said that the absence of plausible explanation has led to gaping holes exposing the false facade of defence by the governmentโs authorities.
Direct relationship
Holding that there is a direct employer-employee relationship between the government and the petitioner, the court directed the authorities to reinstate her to the post she had held and allow her to work till the regular appointment made to the post. The court also said she is entitled to the back wages and benefits of the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961.
