Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Shri Ningappa Gudagi on 24 March, 2025

                                                 -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB
                                                         WA No. 1180 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                              PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                 AND
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
                              WRIT APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2024 (S-REG)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        BY THE SECRETARY,
                        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
                        VIKASA SOUDHA,
                        BANGALORE - 560 001.

                   2.   THE COMMISSIONER
                        DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
                        M.S. BUILDING,
                        5TH FLOOR,
                        BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                                              ...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by PRABHAKAR       (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)
SWETHA
KRISHNAN
Location: High     AND:
Court of
Karnataka

                   1.   SHRI NINGAPPA GUDAGI
                        S/O DEVANDRAPPA GUDHAGI,
                        AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                        R/O C/O M.N. HOSAGOUDAR
                        NO. 387, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
                        S. NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT,
                        DAVANAGERE - 570 004.
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SMT. AKSHATA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
                                 -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB
                                            WA No. 1180 of 2024




      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
No.12611/2023      (S-REG)       DATED           15.04.2024      AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION.

      THIS   APPEAL,     COMING       ON     FOR      PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       N. V. ANJARIA
       and
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen

Chandrashekar for the appellants and learned advocate

Smt. Akshata Sharma for the respondent.

2. The State of Karnataka and Commissioner, Department of

Social Welfare who were the original respondents in the writ

petition, have filed this appeal seeking to challenge the judgment

and order dated 15th April 2024 passed by learned Single Judge,

NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB

whereby the petition of the respondent-original petitioner came to

be allowed.

2.1 Endorsement/order dated 8th February 2023 issued by the

Commissioner, Department of Social Welfare came to be set aside

and the said authority was directed to reconsider the case of the

petitioner for regularization with adherence to law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others vs. Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1].

3. The petitioner prayed in the petition to set aside the

endorsement dated 8th February 2023, whereby his representation

dated 5th December 2022 seeking regularization was rejected. The

representation was rejected, stated the petitioner, despite the order

passed by this Court dated 16th November 2022 in Writ Petition

No.4321 of 2020. The petitioner was a retired daily rated worker

who was appointed on 9th March 1985 as Ward Superintendent in

the Government General Boys Hostel in Haveri District at Naregal,

Haveri District on the daily wage of Rs.10.

3.1 The petitioner was given appointed for 20 days, however,

was continued in the employment as there was no other person

NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB

available who could fill the post. The petitioner has put in 15 years

of service. It was the case of the petitioner that several similarly

situated persons came to be regularized in service in view of the

orders passed by this Court in different writ petitions, the details of

which were mentioned in paragraph 5 of the petition. It was stated

that the order in Writ Petition No.4321 of 2022 aforementioned was

passed observing that the petitioner's case for regularization

cannot be rejected on the ground that he would not fulfill condition

No.4 of the decision of Umadevi (supra).

3.2 It was the case of the petitioner that denial of right of

regularization was an arbitrary action and that the petitioner was

denied justice despite orders passed in writ petition No.42116-

42253 of 2001 which had gone upto the Supreme Court. It was the

case that the representation of the petitioner was declined by the

respondents disregarding the decision and order in petition

No.4321 of 2020 filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned Single Judge observed that the findings recorded in

the order in the aforementioned previous petition underscored the

aspect that the petitioner had never approached this Court for

protection and that continuance of his services was not based on

NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB

any interim order. The respondents had continued the petitioner in

service for long 15 years, which factum did attract the dictum in

Umadevi (supra), entitling the petitioner for the measure of

regularization.

4.1 Learned Single Judge in his reasoning highlighted that the

right of the petitioner to seek regularization needed favourable

consideration in light of the directions issued by this Court in the

earlier petitions. Learned Single Judge reproduced the

observations in paragraph 7 from the order in petition No.8192 of

1990, which deserves to be recollected to be reproduced,

"The endorsement dated 05.12.2019 indicates that the petitioner's request for regularization is rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner would not fulfill condition No.4 laid down in UMADEVI case. Condition No.4 lays down that a person who is continued in service on daily wage basis on the strength of any interim order, such person would not be entitled for regularization. But in the instant case, the petitioner has not filed any writ petition prior to 2001. The petitioner was not continued on daily wage basis on the strength of interim order passed in any writ petition. When the petitioner has not approached the Court prior to 2001 and when the petitioner is not continued on the strength of interim order passed in favour of the petitioner, the question of rejecting petitioner's case solely on the ground that the petitioner was continued in service on daily wage basis only on the strength of interim order passed in favour of the petitioner is baseless. Admittedly the

NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB

petitioner was not party or petitioner in W.P.No.8192/1990. No material is produced by the respondents to demonstrate that petitioner was a party to the said Writ Petition. Hence, the impugned endorsement requires to be quashed with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the issue in accordance with law, in the light of UMADEVI case, since the petitioner's case for regularization cannot be rejected on the ground that he would not fulfill condition No.4 of UMADEVI case."

4.2 Learned Single Judge addressed the controversy to notice

that it was a clear case of the petitioner that completion of 10 years

of service by him was not on the strength of an interim order

passed by any court. The case of the petitioner was based on the

dictum of Umadevi (supra), as he had rendered uninterrupted

service under the respondents without the benefit of the court's

order. It was therefore observed that the reliance placed by the

respondents and the Government Order dated 6th August 1990

which outlined the conditions for cancellation of the appointment of

the casual workers was not applicable.

5. From the above, two factual aspects were established. First

was that the petitioner continued in service for more than 10 years

uninterruptedly. Secondly was that his continuance in service was

not with protective umbrella of interim order passed by any court.

The rejection of the representation by the respondents on the basis

NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB

of the Government Order was not justified and the decline on the

part of the authorities to accept the request of the petitioner was

without foundation of facts, rather the facts stood in favour of the

petitioner to reap the benefit of Umadevi (supra). It was observed

that the State had adopted inconsistent position.

5.1 The argument on the part of the appellant-State was rightly

rejected by learned Single Judge that there was an interim order

passed in Writ Petition No.12610 of 1993, for, the said order was

not an order in rem and could not therefore debilitate the petitioner

or operate in his case. In the facts of the case, this Court endorses

to the following reasoning of learned Single Judge in paragraph 9,

"Essentially, the petitioner's situation does not hit the criteria outlining the Government order dated 06.08.1990 rendering his application inappropriate and unjustifiable. This Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the learned AAG that interim order granted in W.P.No.12610/1993 being an order in rem apply universally and therefore, State resolved not to dismiss all the daily wage employees, whether party or not a party in previous round of litigation."

5.2 There is no gainsaying that the petitioner satisfied the

eligibility criteria to be considered for regularization. The law laid

down in Umadevi (supra) operated in favour of the petitioner. The

NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB

rejection of representation and denial to regularization was

erroneous in law and not justified in facts.

6. No error could be booked in the judgment and order of

learned Single Judge.

7. The appeal fails as meritless and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-