Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner And Secretary To Govt vs Sri. Kallappa on 17 March, 2025

Author: Krishna S Dixit

Bench: Krishna S Dixit

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB
                                                         WP No. 6238 of 2020
                                                    C/W WP No. 48123 of 2019



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 17TH 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. 6238 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)
                                            C/W
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 48123 OF 2019 (S-KAT)

                   IN WP No. 6238/2020

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. P. JUNJAPPA
                   S/O LATE PERUMAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                   WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER
                   OFFICE OF THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
                   ANEKAL RANGE, ANEKAL
                   BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHAKAMBARI
                   AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   1.    THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
                         ARANYA BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR
                         MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS
                         BANGALORE-560 003

                   2.    THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
                         VANAVILASA 4TH FLOOR
                         18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
                         BANGALORE-560 003
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB
                                       WP No. 6238 of 2020
                                  C/W WP No. 48123 of 2019



3.    THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
      BANGALORE URBAN DIVISION
      ARANYA BHAVANA COMPOUND
      18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
      BANGALORE-560 003
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF
THE    HON'BLE   TRIBUNAL   DT    31.7.2019   IN   A.NO.3232-
3234/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER
IS CONCERNED, PERUSE THE SAME AND QUASH THE SAID
ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE PRAYER
SOUGHT FOR IN A.NO.3232 TO 3234/2017, ALLOW THE
APPLICATION BEFORE KSAT AND GRANT THE PRAYER OF
REGULARIZATION ON COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF SERVICE
AND ALSO EXTEND THEM THE PAY SCALE ATTACHED TO THE
POST IN WHICH THEY ARE WORKING BY APPLYING THE
DOCTRINE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK AND THE ARTICLE
39(d) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH ALL MONETARY
BENEFITS.

IN WP NO. 48123/2019

BETWEEN:

1.      THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT.
        DEPT. OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES
        M.S.BUILDING
        BENGALURU-560 001
                           -3-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB
                                     WP No. 6238 of 2020
                                C/W WP No. 48123 of 2019



2.     THE DIRECTOR
       ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
       VETERINARY SERVICES
       DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BENGALURU-560 001

3.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
       AMRUTH MAHAL CATTLE BREEDING STATION
       AJJAMPURA POST, TARIKERE TALUK
       CHIKKAMAGALURU
       DISTRICT-577 547
                                       ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

AND:

1.     SRI. KALLAPPA
       S/O LATE VEERAPPA
       AGED 80 YEARS
       RETIRED MPL, ATTIMOGGA VILLAGE
       AJJAMPURA POST, TARIKERE TALUK
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547
       (APPLICANT IN A.NO.1228/2017)

2.     SRI. SABJAN
       S/O LATE BUDENSAB
       AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
       RETIRED MPL, ATTIMOGGA VILLAGE
       AJJAMPURA POST, TARIKERE TALUK
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547
       (APPLICANT IN A.NO.1229/2017)

3.     SRI. ANNAPPA
       S/O LATE RAMOJI RAO
       AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
       RETIRED MPL HOSADURGA ROAD
       "MANJUNATHA NILAYA"
       OPPOSITE TO VENKATESHA TALKIES
       AJJAMPURA POST, TAIKERE TALUK
       CHIKKABAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547
       (APPLICANT IN A.NO.1230/2017)
                           -4-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB
                                     WP No. 6238 of 2020
                                C/W WP No. 48123 of 2019



4.     SRI. B. MOHAMMAD HAYATH
       S/O LATE BUDENSAB
       AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
       RETIRED MPL, KOTE ROAD
       AJJAMPURA POST, TARIKERE TALUK
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547

       (SINCE DEAD, BY ORDER DATED
       07.06.2022 THE LR IS BROUGHT ON
       RECORD AS 4A)

4(A)   SMT. RIHANA
       W/O SAMAD
       NO.142, BHAVANI MILL ROAD
       LAKKAVALLI, TARIKERI TALUK
       CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577116
       (APPLICANT IN A.NO.1231/2017)

5.     SRI. PUTTA
       S/O LATE HALLAGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
       RETIRED MPL, BASUR VILLAGE
       KADDUR TALUK
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 116
       (APPLICANT IN A.NO.1233/2017)

6.     SRI. THIMMAPPA
       S/O HANUMAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
       RETIRED MPL, BASUR VILLAGE
       KADDUR TALUK
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 116
       (APPLICANT IN A.NO.1241/2017)

7.     SRI. KHAJAPEER
       S/O MASTHA SAB
       SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE
       SMT. RAJIYABEGUM
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
       RETIRED MPL, HALEPET
       BIRUR POST, KADUR TALUK
                            -5-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB
                                      WP No. 6238 of 2020
                                 C/W WP No. 48123 of 2019




       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 116
       (APPLICANT IN A.NO.4257/2018)

8.     SRI. PAKEERAPPA
       S/O JOGI THIMMANNA
       SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE
       SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
       RETIRED MPL, SUNNAGARA BEEDI
       AJJAMPURA POST, TARIKERE TALUK
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547

       (SINCE DEAD, BY ORDER DATED 07.06.2022
       THE LR IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS 8A)

8(A)   Sri. VENKATESH P
       S/O LATE PHAKEERAPPA
       WARD NO.2, SUNAGAR BEEDI
       AJJAMPURA POST
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
       (APPLICANT IN A.NO.4258/2018)

9.     SRI. PEEROJI
       S/O RAMOJI RAO
       RETIRED MPL
       SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE
       SMT. LAKSHMI BAI
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
       SHIVAJI ROAD
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547
       (APPLICANT IN A.NO.4259/2018)

10.    SRI. MANJOJI
       S/O GANGOJI
       SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE
       SMT. KOWSHALYABAI
       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
       RETIRED MPL, ATTIMOGGE VILLAGE
       AJJAMPURA POST, TARIKERE TALUK
                         -6-
                                  NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB
                                   WP No. 6238 of 2020
                              C/W WP No. 48123 of 2019



      CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547
      (APPLICANT IN A.NO.4260/2018)

11.   SRI. HANUMANTHA
      S/O PUTTANNA
      SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE
      SMT. GANGAMMA
      AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
      RETIRED MPL, BHAVANI ROAD
      AJJAMPURA POST, TARIKERE TALUK
      CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547
      (APPLICANT IN A.NO.4261/2018)

12.   SRI. RANGAPPA
      S/O LATE RANGAPPA
      SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE
      SMT. MALAMMA
      AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
      RETIRED MPL, MALLENAHALLI
      BAGGAVALLI POST, TARIKERE TALUK
      CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547
      (APPLICANT IN A.NO.4262/2018)

13.   SRI. GANGA
      S/O LATE RANGAPPA
      SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE
      SMT. GANGAMMA
      AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
      RETIRED MPL, MALLENAHALLI
      BAGGAVALLI POST, TARIKERE TALUK
      CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547
      (APPLICANT IN A.NO.4263/2018)

14.   SRI. MALLAPPA NAIKA
      S/O KARIYAPPA
      SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE
      SMT. RANGAMMA
      AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
      RETIRED MPL, BISILERE VILLAGE
      BASUR POST, KADUR TALUK
      CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 116
                            -7-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB
                                       WP No. 6238 of 2020
                                  C/W WP No. 48123 of 2019



        (SINCE DEAD, BY ORDER DATED 07.06.2022
        THE LR IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS 14A)

14(A) SMT. RANGAMMA
      W/O MALLAPPA NAYAKA
      BISILERI VILLAGE, BISILERI POST
      KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
      (APPLICANT IN A.NO.4264/2018)

                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO
    R7 & R9 TO R14;
    R4(A), R8(A) & R14(A) ARE SERVED AND
    UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE    THE   IMPUGNED   ORDER    DATED    10.10.2018   IN
APPLICATION NOs.1228 TO 1231, 1233 AND 1241 OF 2017
C/W APPLICATION NOS. 4257 TO 4264 OF 2018 ON THE FILE
OF   THE   HON'BLE   KARNATAKA    STATE    ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-E.




     THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
           and
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                                 -8-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB
                                           WP No. 6238 of 2020
                                      C/W WP No. 48123 of 2019



                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

These two writ petitions are filed by the respective

petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India. As identical questions are involved in both these

petitions, as per the orders of this Court dated

24.01.2024, these two matters are posted together with

the consent of both the parties. As common argument is

heard in both these petitions, these two petitions are

heard and disposed of together by passing common

judgment, however, findings on facts and on law are

separately dealt with.

WP 6238/2020:

2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged

the legality and correctness of the order dated 31.07.2019

passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as `KSAT'), wherein the petitioner's

application seeking regularization of his service in the

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

Forest Department was dismissed. By filing this petition,

petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order of

KSAT and sought a writ of certiorari directing the

respondents to grant regularization of his services along

with all consequential monetary benefits.

Factual Background:

3. The petitioner P. Junjappa, was engaged as a

daily wage employee in Forest Department over a period of

thirty years and has since then, discharging his duties as a

Forest Watcher/Driver performing tasks equivalent to those

assigned to regular employees. Despite rendering

continuous uninterrupted service for an extended period,

the petitioner's request for regularization was denied

through endorsements dated 29.8.2016 (Annexures-A5 to

A7), prompting him to seek redressal before KSAT. But,

however, the KSAT, vide order dated 31.07.2019,

dismissed his claim for regularization on the following

grounds:

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

• Lack of documentary evidence

establishing continuous service.

• Non-fulfillment of conditions prescribed

in the land mark decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Secretary, State of

Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi

(3) and Others, reported in (2006) 4

SCC 1.

• Delay in seeking regularization.

• Failure to demonstrate parity with

similarly placed employees who had

been granted regularization.

4. Learned AGA took notice on behalf of respondents

but, has not filed any objections.

5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel

for the petitioner Sri Ranganath S. Jois and learned AGA

and perused the records.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

Petitioner's arguments:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner

Sri Ranganath S.Jois would submit that, being aggrieved by

the dismissal of the claim of the petitioner by the KSAT,

this petition is filed. According to his submission, the

petitioner has continuously served the Forest Department

for over more than 30 years performing his duties akin to

those assigned to the regular employees. He has satisfied

the criteria for regularization as per the various

Government Orders/Circulars issued both prior to and

subsequent to the Umadevi (supra) decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. He would submit that, the denial of

regularization of the petitioner's service has violated the

provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,

as similarly situated employees have been granted

regularization. He would submit that, the KSAT has

erroneously applied the ratio in the judgment of Umadevi

(supra) without appreciating the subsequent decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others vs.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

M.L.Kesari and other reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247,

Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others

reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65, and also the judgment of

this Court authored by one of us i.e., Justice Krishna

S.Dixit in State of Karnataka and others vs.

M.A.Biradar and another in WA 100387/2023 (S-

REG) (Dharwad Bench) which permits the regularization of

employees who have completed 10 years of service in

sanctioned post. He would further submit that, the non-

issuance of final appointment orders should not be a

ground for rejection as his continuous service is amply

substantiated by salary records and departmental

communications so produced along with the petition. He

would further submit that, the petitioner's case is

distinguishable from the general category of daily wage

worker and in that, his duties and responsibilities were

indistinguishable from those of permanent employees. In

support of his submission, learned counsel for the

petitioner cites various precedents wherein, Courts have

intervened to prevent arbitrary denial of regularization.

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

Furthermore, he would submit that, the Doctrine of

Legitimate Expectation can be applied to the facts of this

case as the petitioner has been continuously employed by

the Government for decades. Therefore, he prays to allow

the petition and set aside the impugned order of the KSAT.

Respondent's arguments:

7. The learned AGA comprising the State and the

Forest Department, opposed the writ petition contending

that, the petitioner's engagement was not against a

sanctioned post. He would submit that the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Umadevi (Supra) has categorically held that, daily

wage employees do not have an inherent right to claim

regularization. He would submit that, the petitioner has not

produced formal appointment order or other conclusive

proof demonstrating continuous service in a sanctioned

post. He would further submit that, to regularize services of

daily wagers which was granted to some employees under

the Government Order dated 06.09.1990 but, such benefit

cannot be extended post Umadevi's judgment. He would

further submit that, the continuation of petitioner's

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

employment was a result of interim relief granted by Courts

and not due to any official recognition of his service tenure.

He also emphasized that, the recruitment rules for the

Forest Department require appointments to be made

through the prescribed selection process. He argues that

allowing regularization of employees like the petitioner

would amount to circumventing the recruitment rules,

leading to an unfair advantage.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submission of both the sides. Perused the records.

Analysis and findings:

9. Upon meticulous examination of the impugned

judgment of KSAT and a comprehensive consideration of

the arguments advanced by both the sides, this Court finds

that, the Tribunal has committed multiple errors in law and

on facts, resulting in grave injustice to the petitioner. The

following points highlight the fundamental infirmities in the

reasoning adopted by the Tribunal.

- 15 -

                                            NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB






      A.   Erroneous          application        of    Umadevi
judgment:

10. The Tribunal's reliance on the Constitution

Bench judgment in Umadevi (supra) is misplaced, as it

has been applied in a rigid and mechanical manner without

considering the subsequent clarification by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in M.L.Kesari (supra). The decision in

M.L.Kesari (supra) categorically stipulate that, employees

who have completed ten years of service in sanctioned post

prior to the pronouncement of Umadevi (supra) are

entitled to regularization. In the said judgment, the

Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that 'those who rendered over

ten years of service in sanctioned post should not be

deprived of regularization merely due to the procedural

delays on the part of the authority'. In this case, it is a

specific plea of the petitioner that, he is in continuous

service of Forest Department as a Watcher/Driver and his

service is on par with the regular employees and he has

been engaged in the said services right from the date of his

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

appointment as a daily wager. This fact is not denied

specifically by the respondents. Non-appreciation of

continuous service of more than 30 years squarely falls

within the protective ambit of the principle laid down in

aforesaid judgment. The learned Tribunal has failed to

evaluate the substantial evidence furnished by the

petitioner including his salary records, service certificates

and official departmental correspondences which

unequivocally establish his continuous and uninterrupted

employment. The absence of a formal appointment order

should not in itself, negate the legitimate rights of an

employee who has been continuously engaged in service.

B. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:

11. The petitioner has provided cogent evidence to

demonstrate that, other similarly situated employees have

been granted regularization while he has been arbitrarily

denied the same relief.

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

12. The Tribunal's refusal to consider this prayer of

the petitioner on the pretext that, he did not produce

certified copies of such order is legally untenable. The

burden of proof should lie upon the respondents, who are

the custodians of all relevant records, thereby, there shall

not be any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution

with regard to prayer made by the petitioner.

C. Unjustified rejection on the grounds of delay:

13. The learned KSAT has erred in dismissing the

claim solely on the ground of delay. It is well settled that,

delay cannot be the sole criterion to deny service benefits,

particularly when an employee has been continuously

engaged by the Government. The delay, if any is

attributable to the respondents' failure to regularize his

services rather than any inaction on the part of the

petitioner. It is well settled that, denial of the legitimate

rights without justification amounts to violation of

fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution

of India. The respondents have failed to provide any cogent

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

reasons for differential treatment meted out to the

petitioner vis-à-vis similarly situated employees. Thus, by

filing this petition, the principles of equity and justice are

prayed by the petitioner which necessitated him to seek

relief so sought.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo vs. Union of

India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 has

observed in para.20 as under:

"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:

"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..."

15. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C)

No.5873/2025 in Union Territory of Jammu and

Kashmir and Ors. Vs. Abdul Rehman Khanday and

Ors. decided on 7.3.2025 at para.2 of its judgment

observed with regard to the conduct of the State

Officials/authorities in considering the similar prayers of the

daily wagers therein who had sought regularization of their

services which reads as follows:

"At the very outset, we are constrained to observe that the present case is a glaring and textbook example of obstination exhibited

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

by the state officials/authorities, who consider themselves to be above and beyond the reach of law. The inaction of the officers of the petitioner - Union Territory, who took about 16 years to comply with a simpliciter High Court order passed on 03.05.2007, is shocking and prima facie contemptuous.

3. However, what concerns us is not the delay of decades alone, but also the incontrovertible fact that the poor respondents, being daily wage workers, have been repeatedly harassed by the petitioners by passing cryptic orders, thereby overlooking the true import and spirit of the order dated 03.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. In such facts and circumstances, the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court including the imposition of symbolic cost does not warrant any interference by this Court."

16. Even the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Writ Appeal No.100387/2023 decided on 4.9.2024

supra authored by one of us i.e., Justice Krishna Dixit

following Nihal Singh (supra) granted the relief of the kind

to the private litigants by dismissing the appeal of the

State Government. Thus, respondents cannot deny the

relief to the petitioner by quoting jurisprudential theories.

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

CONCLUSION:

17. In view of the aforementioned legal and factual

infirmities, it is evident that, the order passed by the KSAT

is unsustainable in law. The KSAT has failed to appreciate

the legal principles governing regularization, as laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.L.Kesari (supra) and other

precedents. Thus, the petitioner has successfully

established his case for regularization and the respondents

have not provided any legally tenable justification for

denying him this benefit. Therefore, writ petition filed by

the petitioner succeeds.

18. The petitioner-State has filed this petition

under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India

challenging the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the

KSAT in Application Nos.12282 to 1231, 1233, and

1241/2017 clubbed with application No.4257 to 4264 of

2018 whereby, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the

- 23 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

respondents and directed the State Government to extend

the pensionary benefits to them.

19. The records of this petition reveal that, during

the pendency of the petition, respondent nos. 4 and 8 died

and their legal heirs are brought on record and accordingly

cause-title came to be amended.

Factual Background:

20. The respondents were initially engaged as daily

wage workers between the years 1963 and 1969 at Amrith

Mahal Cattle Breeding Centre, located in Ajjampura Village

under the jurisdiction of the Department of Animal

Husbandry. Over time, their employment status underwent

a change as they were subsequently categorized as

Monthly-Rated Labourers (MRLs) or Monthly Paid Laborers

(MPLS) signifying a shift from daily wage employment to a

more structured and regularized form of service. Despite

the fact that, respondents had rendered uninterrupted and

continuous service for period exceeding three decades,

their rightful claim for pensionary benefits were denied

- 24 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

upon their retirement. This denial lead the respondents to

seek legal recourse before the KSAT asserting their

employment to pensionary benefits on the ground of parity

with other similarly placed employees who had been

extended such benefits by the State. Their grievance

primarily revolved on the issue of discriminatory treatment

in relation to similarly situated employees who had been

granted pensionary entitlement while the respondents were

arbitrarily deprived of the same, thereby, compelling them

to initiate legal proceedings to secure their rights.

Therefore, it is prayed by the respondents before the KSAT

to grant the reliefs so claimed in their respective

applications supra.

21. The petitioner-State appeared before the KSAT

and in opposition to the claim raised by the respondents,

filed objections by relying upon the provisions of the

Government Order No.FD 26 SRF (166) dated 12.5.1966

and contended that, the respondents' employment was

explicitly governed by the said Government Order. It is the

- 25 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

contention of the State that, in accordance with the terms

of the aforementioned Government Order, the respondents

were classified as employees falling under a non-

pensionable contingent establishment, which precludes

them from claiming any pensionary benefits as a matter of

right. It was further contended that, the respondents were

only entitled to receive gratuity benefits in accordance with

the stipulations of the said Government Order and had no

vested right to claim pension which accrued in their favour.

The respondent-State sought to distinguish the case of the

employees from those of other similarly placed employees

relied upon by them by asserting, that the specific

circumstances of the case referred to by the employees

were not applicable to their claims and could not serve as a

basis for extending pensionary benefits.

22. Considering the submissions of both the parties

and after thorough examination of the materials placed on

record, the KSAT arrived at a decision and allowed the

applications filed by the respondents herein. The KSAT,

- 26 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

while adjudicating upon the matter, emphasized the

fundamental principles of equal treatment and non-

discrimination enshrined in the legal frame work. The KSAT

observed that, denying the pensionary benefits to the

respondents despite their prolonged and dedicated service

for over three decades amounted to any arbitrary and

unjustified distinction. Taking into account the principle

that similarly placed employees should not be subjected to

desperate treatment and thus, KSAT directed the State to

extend pensionary benefits to the respondents in the same

manner as had been granted to other comparable

employees. The decision underscored the necessity of

ensuring fairness and uniformity in the treatment of

employees who had rendered long years of service,

reinforcing the principle that, pensionary entitlements

should not be denied on arbitrary and discriminatory

grounds.

23. The learned HCGP for the State with all

vehemence submits that, the KSAT has committed grave

- 27 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

error in allowing the applications filed by the respondents.

He would submit that, as a matter of right, the respondents

are not entitled for any pensionary benefits as claimed in

their respective applications.

24. In support of his submission, he relied upon

the findings of the KSAT as well as submissions of both the

side and also Government Circular stated supra.

25. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondents justifies the findings of the KSAT and submits

that, as respondents have worked continuously for more

than three decades, when similarly placed employees are

entitled for pensionary benefits, these respondents cannot

be deprived of the same. He would submit that, the

Tribunal was right in allowing the applications of the

respondents. Thus, prays to dismiss the petition.

26. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submissions of both the side. Perused the record. The

fundamental issue raised for adjudication in the present

- 28 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

writ petition pertains to the alleged denial of pensionary

benefits to the respondents, despite the fact that such

benefits have been extended to other employees who are

similarly placed in terms of employment and service

conditions. Therefore, the core question, that emerges for

consideration is, "whether this differential treatment meted

out to the respondents amounts to violation of their

constitutional rights enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and

39D of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the

Constitution, mandates that, the State shall not deny any

person equality before the law or the equal protection of

the laws. This constitutional provision ensures that, no

individual or group of individuals is subjected to arbitrary

discrimination by the State. The Doctrine of Equality

embedded in Article 14 extends to employment related

matters and prohibits any unreasonable classification

among individuals who are similarly placed. Further,

Article 16 reinforces, this principle by guaranteeing equal

opportunity in matters relating to public employment and

prohibiting discrimination on unreasonable grounds. The

- 29 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

act of granting pensionary benefits to certain employees

while simultaneously denying the same to the respondents,

who are identically situated, constitutes an instance of

hostile discrimination. Such a discriminatory treatment is

impermissible under the constitutional scheme and violates

the fundamental rights of the respondents. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar

Srivastava, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347, has

categorically held that, if a particular benefit is extended to

one set of employees, the same cannot be denied to

another set of employees who are similarly placed unless a

reasonable and rationale classification is established. In the

instant case, the State Government has failed to

demonstrate any distinguishing factor or valid reason

justifying the denial of pensionary benefits to the

respondents while granting the same to their counter parts.

This lack of justification renders the State's action,

arbitrary and discriminatory violating the fundamental

rights of the respondents under the Constitution.

- 30 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

27. In addition to this, Article 39D of Constitution,

which is a part of the directive principles of State Policy

enshrines the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". This

principle has been consistently upheld by the judiciary in

various judgments. In State of Punjab and Others v.

Jagjit Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148,

the Hon'ble Apex Court reaffirmed that artificial

classification which deny equal benefits to employees

performing the same work cannot withstand constitutional

scrutiny. The respondents, having performed duties similar

to those of their colleagues who have been granted

pensionary benefits, cannot be arbitrarily excluded from

receiving the same. The Doctrine of `Equal pay for equal

work' applies in full force to the present case and denial of

pensionary benefits to the respondents is indirect

contravention of this well-established constitutional

principle. More so, the doctrine of legitimate expectation as

expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India

and Others v. Hindustan Development Corpn. and

Others, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499, is also relevant to

- 31 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

the facts of the present case. The respondents having

served under identical conditions and for an equivalent

period as their counterparts who have been granted

pensionary benefits reasonably expect that, the same

treatment would be extended to them. The State's failure

to fulfill this legitimate expectation amounts to

administrative arbitrariness and unfair treatment. Such

arbitrary actions undermine the principles of good

governance and transparency that the State as a model

employer is expected to uphold.

28. The KSAT in the impugned order has correctly

and legally observed that, the claims of the respondents

are supported by established precedents wherein similarly

situated employees such as B.Vasudeva Murthy and Gopal

Poojari were granted pensionary benefits by virtue of

Government orders dated 8.9.2011 and 22.10.2013

respectively. The State has not provided any cogent or

justifiable explanation for treating the present respondents

differentially from these individuals. Such selective

- 32 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

application of benefits is constitutionally impermissible and

cannot be sustained in law.

29. Upon a thorough examination of the arguments

advanced by both the parties and in light of the well settled

principles of law, we find that the impugned order passed

by the KSAT does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or

legal infirmity. The reason assigned by the KSAT is based

on sound legal principles, established judicial precedents

and on objective assessment of facts. Therefore, there is

no ground warranting interference by this Court. The

arbitrary and selective denial of pensionary benefits to the

respondents is unconstitutional and legally unsustainable.

The State Government being a model employer is expected

to uphold principles of fairness, equality and non-

discriminatory treatment. Any deviation from these

principles constitutes an abuse of executive power and

undermines the fundamental rights of the employees.

- 33 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

30. In the light of our discussion made above, WP

No.6238/2019 deserves to be allowed and WP

No.48123/2019 is liable to be dismissed.

31. Resultantly, we pass the following:

ORDER

WP No.6238/2019 is favoured with following

directions:

(i) The order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the KSAT is hereby quashed.

(ii) Respondents are directed to consider petitioner's case for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in M.L.Kesari (supra) and other applicable judgments.

(iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential monetary benefits including arrears of pay as per the Doctrine of `Equal pay for Equal work'.

(iv) The entire process of regularization shall be completed within a period of three

- 34 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10889-DB

months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Likewise, WP No.48123/2019 is dismissed as

being devoid of merits. Consequentially, the State

Government is directed to take the following action:

(i) Extend pensionary benefits to the respondents in the same manner as granted to other similarly situated employees.

(ii) Compute and disburse the arrears of pensionary benefits to the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

(iii) Ensure that no further instances of arbitrary denial of pensionary benefits arise in respect of employees who are similarly placed as that of respondents.