Karnataka High Court
H Pallappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2017
WP No. 106754 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.106754 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
H. PALLAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE,
R/O: HOSANINGAPUR,
POST: MUNIRABAD DAM,
DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
PATTIHAL
Location: High VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION
AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
VIJAYPURA - 184 120.
3. THE SUPERINDEANT ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION
AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
KALBURGI CIRCLE, KALBURGI - 585 211.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2017
WP No. 106754 of 2024
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
IRRIGATION AND
GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
KOPPAL - 583 231,
DIST: KOPPAL.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND
GROUND WATER DEPARTMEN,
KOPPAL - 583 231,
DIST: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)
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
02/08/2024 BEARING NO. DATED SAM/ SAKAANIE/SANI AND
AMAA/UV/KOM/DIXI./2 024-25/554 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 THERIEN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2017
WP No. 106754 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
a. A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
writ or order or direction, quashing the
impugned endorsements 02/08/2024 Bearing
No. Dated SAM;SAKAANIE/ SANI&AMAA/ UV/
KOM/ DIXI./ 2024-25/ 554 issued by the 5th
respondent/the AEE Koppal produced at
Annexure-G.
b. 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 facts and circumstances of
the case including an order for costs be issued
in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner is also similarly placed like that of
the petitioner in W.P. No.106610/2024, disposed by this
Court in terms of its order dated 20th January 2025. The
Court wile disposing the matter, held as follows:
1. The petitioner is before the Court, calling
in question, the impugned endorsement, dated
02.08.2024 by which, the claim of the petitioner for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2017
regularization of his services is turned down by the
State.
2. Heard the learned counsel Shri
Vijaykumar Balagerimath appearing for the petitioner
and Smt. Kirtilatha R.Patil, learned HCGP appearing
for the respondent - State.
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 of
similarly placed persons. Hence the order
relied by the petitioner is not applicable to
the petitioner. It is submitted that Annexure-
(2014) 13 SCC 249
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2017
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
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."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2017
3. The only difference in the case at hand is that,
statement of objections had been filed by the State in which
the averment was that the petitioner therein was not one of
those parties before the Apex Court and the judgment
would not be applicable to the petitioner, those were the
averments made in the said petition. The contention in the
case at hand is also the same.
4. Learned HCGP submits that the petitioner was
not the one who was before the Apex Court and the
judgment of Apex Court is not applicable to the petitioner.
5. The submission is noted only to be rejected,
except the said difference, there is no other difference in
what this Court had considered in writ petition quoted
supra.
6. In that light, I deem it appropriate to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition stands disposed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2017
(ii) The endorsement dated 02.08.2024 stands
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.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP/CT-ASC
