Karnataka High Court
Devappa S/O Basappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158
WP No. 106973 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.106973 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DEVAPPA S/O. BASAPPA,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE,
R/O: BAHADURBANDI - 583 238,
TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
IRRIGATION AND GROUND
WATER DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
IRRIGATION AND GROUND
WATER DEPARTMENT,
VIJAYAPURA - 184 120.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR I
RRIGATION AND GROUND
WATER DEPARTMENT,
KALBURGI CIRCLE,
KALBURGI - 585 211.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158
WP No. 106973 of 2024
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
IRRIGATION AND
GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
KOPPAL - 58 3231,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
IRRIGATION AND GROUND
WATER DEPARTMENT,
KOPPAL - 583 231,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT
OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENTS DATED 02/08/2024 BEARING NO. SAM.
SAKAANIE/ SANI AND AMAA/ UV/ KO/ DIXE/2024-25/559
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT/THE AEE, KOPPAL
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION,
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE
OF PETITIONER AS ON THE DATE ELIGIBLE AND TO GIVE ALL
THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS IN TERMS OF THE
REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158
WP No. 106973 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
"a) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other writ or order or direction, quashing the
impugned endorsements dated 02/08/2024 bearing
No. Sam. SAKAANIE/ SANI &
AMAA/UV/KO/DIXE/2024-25/559 issued by the 5th
Respondent/The AEE, Koppal produced at
Annexure-G.
b) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other writ or order or direction, directing the
Respondents to regularize the service of petitioner
as on the date eligible and to give all the
pensionary benefits in terms of the representation
vide Annexure-E.
c) Such other writ or orders or direction may deem fit
under the case including an order for costs be
issued in the interest of justice."
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar
Balagerimath appearing for the petitioner and the learned
AGA Sri.Sharad V.Magadum representing the respondent-
State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that in cases of identical persons, this Court in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158
W.P.No.106610/2024 disposed on 20.01.2025 has
passed the following order:
"3. The petitioner is appointed on daily wages in
the respondent / Department of Minor Irrigation on
01.10.1985, the list is drawn of persons who had
completed 10 years of service and in the list the
petitioner figures at Sl. No.321. It transpires that,
similarly placed persons knocked at the doors of the
Court seeking regularization, which reach the Apex
Court in the judgment of MALATHI DAS (RETIRED)
NOW P.B. MAHISHY AND OTHERS VS. SURESH
AND OTHERS1. The Apex Court directs regularisation
of 74 persons who are before the Apex Court
pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court it
transpires that in the very same Department certain
employees who were juniors to the petitioners have
been regularised. The petitioner's case is not
considered and an endorsement is issued that the
petitioner is not entitled for such regularization.
4. The statement of objections are filed in the
case at hand in which the contention of the state inter
alia is as follows:
"4. It is respectfully submitted that, the order
passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.3338/2014 is applicable only to the Petitioners who
have approached the Hon'ble Court and there is no
specific order in the said order to regularize the service
(2014) 13 SCC 249
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158
of similarly placed persons. Hence the order relied by
the petitioner is not applicable to the petitioner. It is
submitted that Annexure-C was passed in respect of
the petitioners who have approached the court."
5. It is the case of the State again inter alia
that there is no specific order passed by any Court to
regularise the services of the petitioner or any
similarly situated persons as obtaining in Civil Appeal
quoted supra. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner
is an appointee like the others, who had knocked at
the doors of the Apex Court has also like others who
are regularised pursuant to the order passed by the
Apex Court.
6. The petitioner appears to have been picked
and chosen for a differential treatment which smacks
arbitrariness on the part of the State as similarly
placed persons have to be accorded similar belief not
that everyone should not knocked at the doors of this
Court as the State can bear the brunt of litigation and
not an employee for driving every employee to this
Court seeking the very same relief. Therefore, I deem
it appropriate to direct the State to consider the case
of the petitioner In strict consonance with what the
Court has held in MALATHI DAS (supra) and what
the State itself has done in terms of the Government
Order dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure-C) which was
pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court.
7. In that light, the petition deserves to
succeed. The endorsement dated 02.08.2024 stands
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158
quashed. Mandamus issues to the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner bearing in mind
the observations made in the course of the order
within an outer limit of two months, if not earlier. The
petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential
benefits that would flow from such consideration.
Ordered accordingly."
4. The learned AGA would submit that the issue,
no doubt, is covered by the said order, but the petitioner
has not challenged the same from 2015 to 2024. After 9
years of the cause of action arising, the petitioner is before
this Court. The same submission was made in the
aforesaid petition. Moreover, the claim has been turned
down by the State only in 2024. The blame cannot be laid
to the doors of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is
disposed on the same terms that led to disposal of Writ
Petition No.106610/2024.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
