[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sanjay S/O Annappa Dharigonda vs The Director Of Municipal ... on 1 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16857
WP No. 112433 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 112433 OF 2017 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
1. SANJAY S/O ANNAPPA DHARIGONDA,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN,
R/O: BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. ZAKIRHUSSAIN S/O BASHASAB KAMATAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: PUMP OPERATOR,
R/O: BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. HANAMANTHAGOUDA S/O SHASAPPAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PUMP ASSISTANT,
R/O: BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
4. SHIDDAPPA S/O NAGAPPA GADDADEV,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PUMP OPERATOR,
R/O: BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S DIST: BAGALKOT.
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, 5. HANUMANTH S/O KALLOLEPPA MAMADAPUR,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PUMP MECHANIC,
R/O: BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
6. VITHAL S/O HANAMANTHAPPA SUNAGA,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PUMP OPERATOR,
R/O: BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
7. YANKAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA SANAMANI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PUMP ASSISTANT,
R/O: BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16857
WP No. 112433 of 2017
HC-KAR
8. ASHOK S/O MALLAPPA HANAMAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PUMP MECHANIC,
R/O: BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VISHWESWARIAH TOWER, 9TH FLOOR,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALURU.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGLKOT.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD,
SUB-DIVISION NO.2, BAGALKOT.
4. THE PATTAN PANCHAYATH BILAGI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER,
BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI DAYANAND BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SHRI S.S. BAWAKHAN ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS FILED BY THE
PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K DATED 06.11.2013 AND TO
PASS SUITABLE ORDERS REGULARIZING THE SERVICES OF THE
PETITIONERS WITH ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16857
WP No. 112433 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
"WHEREFORE, under the facts and circumstance of case,
the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to;
a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ
of mandamus directing the respondents to consider
the representations filed by the petitioners
produced at Annexure-'H' dated 06/11/2013 and to
pass suitable order regularizing the service of the
petitioners with all other consequential benefits.
b. Issue any other suitable writ order, or direction, as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and
circumstances of the case, including an order of
cots, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard Shri S.S. Badawadagi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned
AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri Dayanand
Bandi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and
Shri S.S Bawakhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4.
3. The petitioners eight in number are said to have been
appointed on 18.11.2002 as trainees and later are appointed
against sanctioned vacant posts on 22.01.2003 and are said to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16857
HC-KAR
be working in the said posts till the date of filing of the petition
on 15.12.2017 and are said to be working even today. Therefore,
learned counsel submits that the petitioners have as on today
rendered 22 years of continuous service. Therefore, the
petitioners' case should merit for consideration for regularisation
in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dharam
Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.1, wherein the Apex Court
has held as under:
"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall
that the State (here referring to both the Union and the
State governments) is not a mere market participant but
a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on
the backs of those who perform the most basic and
recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after
day and year after year, the establishment must reflect
that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement
practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour
under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public
administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in
public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides
fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful
lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-
hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State
Departments must keep and produce accurate
establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing
arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why
they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts
where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the
record should show what alternatives were considered,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16857
HC-KAR
why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and
how the chosen course aligns with
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged
insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional
discipline that should inform every decision affecting
those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of
the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their
duties, and the material indicating vacancies and
comparator regularisations, we issue the following
directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary
posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with
effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High
Court directed a fresh recommendation by the
Commission and a fresh decision by the State on
sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this
purpose, the State and the successor establishment
(U.P. Education Services Selection Commission)
shall create supernumerary posts in the
corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or
equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or
equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions.
On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at
not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale
for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if
higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the
subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the
pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service
shall count from the date of regularization as given
above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each
appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference
between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at
the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post
from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually
paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date
of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may
be. Amounts already paid under previous interim
directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears
shall be released within three months and if in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16857
HC-KAR
default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound
interest at 6% per annum from the date of default
until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has
already retired shall be granted regularization with
effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under
clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity
and other terminal dues. The revised pension and
terminal dues shall be paid within three months of
this Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant
No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during
pendency, his/her legal representatives on record
shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the
date of death, together with all terminal/retiral
dues recalculated consistently with clause (i),
within three months of this Judgment.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education
Services Selection Commission or the prevalent
competent authority, shall file an affidavit of
compliance before this Court within four months of
this Judgment.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such
matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling
"reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further
prolongs the insecurity for those who have already
laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have
learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on
simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear
duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher
standard and therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for
lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in
letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not
mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of
denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16857
HC-KAR
workers. The operative scheme we have set here
comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full
regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn
affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed
to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that
fairness in engagement and transparency in
administration are not matters of grace, but obligations
under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
4. In the light of the said judgment and the continuous
service of the petitioners, the respondents shall now consider the
representation submitted by these petitioners, owing to their
continuous service till date and pass necessary orders thereon in
accordance with law, within an outer limit of twelve (12) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.
Ordered accordingly.
All contentions are left open.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: ASC
