Karnataka High Court

Smt.Anuradha K vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025

Author: Krishna S Dixit

Bench: Krishna S Dixit

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB
                                                        WP No. 2946 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                           PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
                                             AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2946 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. ANURADHA K
                   W/O SHRI. V. KRISHNA
                   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                   OCC: SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
                   WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                   THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
                   HORTICULTURE WATER SHED DEVELOPLMENT
                   DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR
                   AGRICULTURAL COMPLEX
                   BANSHANKARI
                   BANGALORE - 560 070
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHAKAMBARI      AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                         DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE
                         M.S.BUILDING
                         BANGALORE-560 001

                   2.    THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
                         LALBAGH ROAD
                         BANGALORE-560 027
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB
                                           WP No. 2946 of 2021




3.    THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
      HORTICULTURE
      WATER SHED DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
      2ND FLOOR, AGRICULTURAL COMPLEX
      BANSHANKARI
      BANGALORE 560070
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER    OR   DIRECTION,   QUASHING        THE    ORDER    DATED
12.11.2020    (ANNEXURE-T),     PASSED      BY    THE     HON'BLE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN
APPLICATION    NO.4340/2016         AND   ISSUE   A     WRIT   OF
MANDAMUS, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER
THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION, AS PER
THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 30.06.2007 ( ANNEXURE -
M), ON PAR WITH THAT OF THE OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
TEN EMPLOYEES, WHOSE SERVICES HAVE BEEN REGULARIZED
BY THE GOVERNMENT SERVICES HAS BEEN REGULARIZED BY
THE    GOVERNMENT    OF    KARNATAKA       AND    TO    PAY    ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC. ,

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -3-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB
                                             WP No. 2946 of 2021




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
           and
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR


                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Petitioner, a gentle lady has been working since last

37 years on daily wage basis, is grieving before the Writ

Court against State Administrative Tribunal's order dated

12.11.2020 whereby, her Application No.4340/2016

seeking regularization of services has been negatived.

2. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE:

2.1 Petitioner gained entry to service on daily wage

basis since 1.3.1982; she was declared a monthly rated

employee vide order dated 12.1.1990. Along with

petitioner, others similarly placed monthly rated

employees came to be regularized vide order dated

9.2.1994. Subsequently, her services came to be absorbed

as Second Division Assistant vide order dated 22.11.1995.

In the seniority list of SDAs dated 26.2.1997, she figured

NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB

at Sl.No.304. Her juniors having been promoted in

September 2001, another seniority list came to be

prepared on 8.7.2003 wherein, she figured at Sl.No.312.

2.2 Petitioner's representations dated 13.9.2003,

22.9.2003, 27.9.2004 & 18.1.2005 seeking promotion

ultimately ended in an endorsement dated 2.2.2005 that

some enquiry is pending against her and therefore,

promotion cannot be granted. By her representation dated

19.2.2005, she had sought for information relating to the

enquiry and that was met with a stony silence. Petitioner

filed Application No.4338/2005 challenging the

endorsement and seeking a direction for promotion.

2.3 During the pendency of the above Application,

the government passed orders dated 4.6.1999 and

10.2.2006 whereby, petitioner was reverted from the post

of Second Division Assistant to the status of daily wage

employee. Further, a direction was made to recover salary

from her which she had earned after regularization. She

challenged the same in Application No.1395/2006. During

NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB

the pendency of the Application, 2nd respondent passed an

order dated 30.6.2007 regularizing the services of other

employees who too were made to suffer denigration as the

petitioner. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Application

vide order dated 28.6.2013, eventually resulting into

W.P.No.39150/2013 which came to be disposed off

reserving liberty to the petitioner to make representation

for regularization.

2.4 Petitioner's representation for regularization

came to be negatived vide endorsement dated 28.1.2014.

Petitioner filed Application No.2057/2014 challenging the

same and a direction was given to consider petitioner's

grievance. Despite that, the respondents vide order dated

20.4.2016 negatived her claim. Petitioner filed Application

No.4340/2016 and the Tribunal stayed the order of

demotion. However, ultimately, vide order dated

12.11.2020, even this Application came to be rejected.

That is how, the petitioner is before the Writ Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner

vehemently argues that when nine other similar

circumstanced daily wages have been regularized in

service, after recalling their earlier regularization orders,

the same benefit needs to be granted to her also on the

principle of parity. He points out that one of such similarly

circumstanced daily wagers was Mr.Suresh Babu who has

been granted relief by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.10550/2021 (S-KSAT) connected with

W.P.No.18762/2021 (S-KSAT) between B.N.SURESH

BABU vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS,

which is disposed off by a Coordinate Bench vide order

dated 25.03.2022. He points out that his client has been a

victim of a spate of litigations only because of unfair stand

taken by the official respondents and therefore, this court

should come to her rescue. Learned AGA appearing for the

respondents resist the petition repelling the submission of

petitioner and justifying the Tribunal's order.

NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to

grant indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the

submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

who has served the respondents for about 38 years.

Somehow, in a spate of cases, justice has eluded the poor

petitioner whose case squarely matches the fact matrix of

Coordinate Bench judgment in the case of Mr.B.N.Suresh

Babu supra. The contention of learned AGA that no relief

can be granted inasmuch as there was no post against

which the petitioner has put in service, is liable to be

rejected, regard being had to 38 years of service which

she has put in. In such a circumstance, the case of

SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI,

(2006) 4 SCC 1 cannot be banked upon.

5. The Coordinate Bench in Suresh Babu supra,

has granted the relief as under:

" (a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.01.2020 passed in Application

NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB

No.6116/2016 (Annexure-D) as the same suffers from error apparent on the face of the record;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant in the post of Second Division Assistant with effect from 01.07.1995 as has been done in the case of Sri. Cheluvaraju and Hanumanthappa and grant all the consequential benefits such as arrears of salary, increment, revision of pay scale, seniority etc from 01.07.1995."

The fact matrix of the petitioner's case substantially

matches that of Suresh Babu. There is one small

difference that enures to the benefit of petitioner:

petitioner has fought several legal battles. In some of

them, direction was issued to consider her case for

regularization. However, with one or the other

unsustainable cause, the request was negatived.

Therefore, no purpose would be served by just directing

fresh consideration of her case for regularization. This is

one case wherein a direction for regularization is

warranted.

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed; impugned order of Tribunal is quashed. Petitioner's subject

NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB

Application having been favoured, a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents to regularize her services with effect from the date she completed ten years of service and to grant to her all service and monetary benefits on that basis. Time for compliance is three months within which the respondents shall file the compliance report to the Registrar General of this Court, failing which petitioner may move an appropriate application before this Court itself for implementation of this order and for exemplary costs.