Sharanappa S/O Shekaragouda ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 3196 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sharanappa S/O Shekaragouda ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:2021
                                                       WP No. 106464 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.106464 OF 2024 (S-REG)

                      BETWEEN:

                      SHARANAPPA
                      S/O. SHEKARAGOUDA OJJANAHALLI,
                      AGE: 61 YEARS,
                      OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE,
                      R/O: NEAR MOGGI BASAVESHWAR,
                      TEMPLE 9TH WARD, YELABURGA,
                      TQ: YELABURGA - 583 236,
                      DIST: KOPPAL .
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
PATTIHAL
Location: High
                           BY ITS SECRETARY,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,             DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
Dharwad
                           IRRIGATION AND GROUND
                           WATER DEPARTMENT,
                           VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                           BENGALURU - 560 001.

                      2.   THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
                           THE DEPARTMENT OF
                           MINOR IRRIGATION AND
                           GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
                           VIJAYPURA - 184 120.
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:2021
                                     WP No. 106464 of 2024




3.   THE SUPERINTENDEANT ENGINEER,
     THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
     IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER
     DEPARTMENT, KALBURGI,
     CIRCLE KALBURGI - 585 211.

4.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
     THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
     IRRIGATION AND GROUND
     WATER DEPARTMENT,
     KOPPAL - 583 231,
     DISTRICT: KOPPAL.

5.   THE ASSISTAND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
     THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
     IRRIGATION AND GROUND,
     DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION
     AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
     KOPPAL - 583 231,
     DISTRICT: 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 DATED 02/08/2024 BEARING NO. SAM;
SAKAANIE/SANIAND AMAA/ UV/ KOM/ DIXI./ 2024-25/ 556
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:2021
                                      WP No. 106464 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 endorsement dated 02.08.2024 bearing No.SAM: SAKAANIE/ SANI&AMAA/ UV/ KOM/ DIXI/ 2024-25/ 556 issued by the 5th respondent/ the AEE Koppal, produced as Annexure-G.

b) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as on the date eligible and to give all the pensionary benefits in terms of the representation dated 31.08.2024, 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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2021

petitioner for 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-C was passed in respect of the petitioners who have approached the court."

(2014) 13 SCC 249

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2021

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."

3. The only difference in the case at hand is that,

statement of objections had been filed by the State in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2021

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.

(ii) The endorsement dated 02.08.2024 stands quashed. Mandamus issues to

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2021

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