Nagappa S/O Balappa Basaralli vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 3198 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Nagappa S/O Balappa Basaralli vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:2020
                                                        WP No. 106618 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.106618 OF 2024 (S-R)

                      BETWEEN:

                      NAGAPPA S/O. BALAPPA BASARALLI,
                      AGE: 61 YEARS,
                      OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE,
                      R/O: HIREBGANAL - 583 228,
                      TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

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

                      2.   THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
                           DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION
                           AND GROUND WATER
                           DEPARTMENT, VIJAYPURA - 184 120.
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:2020
                                     WP No. 106618 of 2024




3.   THE SUPERINDEANT ENGINEER,
     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,
     DIST: KOPPAL.

5.   THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
     THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
     IRRIGATION AND
     GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
     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 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/ KOM/ DIXI/ 2024-25/557 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 DATED
24/6/2024 AND ETC.,
                              -3-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:2020
                                       WP No. 106618 of 2024




    THIS WRTI PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:



                    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 dated 02/08/2024 Bearing No. SAM. SAKAANIE/ SANI AND AMAA/ UV/ KOM/ DIXI/ 2024-25/ 557 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 dated 24/6/2024.

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:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2020

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 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

(2014) 13 SCC 249

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2020

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 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:2020

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:2020

(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