SRI SHANKRAYYA SWAMY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.202763 OF 2026 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHANKRAYYA SWAMY
S/O NEELAKANTAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
OCC : RETIRED JAWAN
R/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA KUMBAR CHAWL
HONAGUNTI ROAD, SHAHABAD
TQ: SHAHABAD DIST: KALABURAGI 585228.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
(DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
TOWN PLANNING SERVICE)
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU 560001.
Digitally
signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI DIST, KALABURAGI 585102.
5. WADI-SHAHABAD TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY
REP. BY MEMBER SECRETARY
OPP. DSP OFFICE, HONAGUNTI ROAD
SHAHABAD, TQ: SHAHABAD
DIST: KALABURAGI 585228.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADV., FOR R5)
- - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER/COMMUNICATION IN NO.
¸ÀASÉå:£ÀCE 294 UÀÄC¥Áæ 2022(E)
DATED 31.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-R PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND
ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.01.2025
¸ÀA:
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/
£ÀUÁæAiÉÆÃ/¹(7)/¤.¦A.ªÀiÁ/2024/821
COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-V & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari by quashing
the impugned order/communication in No
.¸ÀASÉå:£ÀCE
dated 31.01.2024 vide
294 UÀÄC¥Áæ 2022 ( E )
nd
Annexure-R passed by the 2 respondent/Under
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
Secretary to the Government, and also the
impugned order dated 20.01.2025
passed
¸ÀA:£ÀUÁæAiÉÆÃ/¹/(7)/¤.¦A.ªÀiÁ /2024/821
rd
by the 3 respondent/Commissioner vide
Annexure-V.
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or
direction by directing respondents No.2 to 5 to
consider representation cum request dated
03.08.2022 vide Annexure-N and also dated
16.11.2024 vide Annexure-S of the petitioner and
thereby consider his length of service and grant
service benefits and other consequential reliefs and
also admissible retirement and pensionary benefits
etc., as he is rightly entitled for the regularization,
in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Sri.Sudarshan M., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as
a Group D employee by the respondent No.5 vide
resolution dated 30.06.1987. The appointment was
against a sanctioned post and he continued to work as a
Group D employee with the respondent No.5-Authority,
uninterruptedly for more than 23 years. It is submitted
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have passed number of
orders which indicate that the appointment of the
petitioner was against a sanctioned post, his appointment
was regularized and there was an order for payment of
gratuity and other retiral benefits on his attaining the age
of superannuation. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has sought to treat him as a regular employee
and also sought for pension and other retiral benefits. The
Authorities have passed the impugned orders indicating
that his services cannot be regularized and he would be
entitled to the benefit as per the Karnataka Daily Wage
Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the Act’). It is
also submitted that in the case of a similarly placed
person, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the
writ petition and ordered to regularize the services of the
petitioner therein. The petitioner is also entitled to the
same benefit and hence, he seeks to allow the writ
petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
3. Per contra , Sri.Gourish S. Khashampur, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and the learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 to 4 supports the impugned orders and
submits that the appointment of the petitioner was only as
a daily wage employee and the length of service alone
should not be the basis to regularize his services and
therefore, considering the duration of service, the
respondent-Authorities have taken a decision and granted
all the benefits which the petitioner is entitled under the
provisions of the Act. Hence, they seek to dismiss the
petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1
to 4, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.5 and meticulously perused the material available on
record.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
5. The records indicate that the petitioner was
appointed as a Group D daily wage employee by the Wadi-
Shahabad Town Planning Authority vide resolution dated
30.06.1987. It is not in dispute that from the date of
appointment till the petitioner attained the age of
superannuation i.e. on 31.05.2022, he worked
uninterruptedly as a daily wage Jawan which is a Group D
post, with the respondent No.5. It is to be noticed that
the petitioner was appointed as a Jawan vide resolution
dated 30.06.1987 and thereafter, the respondent No.5
sought permission to fill up certain posts in the Planning
Authority as is evident from Annexure-F dated 27.07.1990
wherein 2 Jawan posts were sought to be filled. In other
words, the appointment of the petitioner as a Jawan was
against a sanctioned vacant post. It is further to be
noticed that the respondent No.2 vide order dated
17.02.1999 permitted the respondent No.5 to fill the
various posts including the post of Jawan. The letter
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
correspondence of the respondent No.5, more particularly
the order dated 13.09.2019 indicates that the petitioner
was appointed against the said sanctioned post and he
continued to work in the said post as a Jawan with the
respondent No.5 uninterruptedly. It is also to be noticed
that the petitioner has placed the service record
maintained by the respondent No.5 which substantiates
the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner worked as a
Jawan with the respondent No.5 for a period of more than
23 years till attaining the age of superannuation.
6. The respondent No.5 passed an order dated
31.05.2022 on the petitioner attaining the age of
superannuation which also indicates that he continued to
work with the respondent No.5 and his services were
regularized. The order of the respondent No.4 dated
17.07.2009 indicates that the appointment of the
petitioner with the respondent No.5 is for more than 10
years and his services have been regularized and he would
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
be entitled to all the benefits under the Karnataka Civil
Services Rules, 1958. It is to be noticed that the
respondent No.5 vide order dated 04.07.2022 at
Annexure-M granted the benefit of gratuity and DCRG to
the petitioner upon attaining the age of superannuation.
The respondent No.5, based on the representations of the
petitioner, requested the respondent No.2 to regularize
the services of the petitioner as a permanent employee
vide communication dated 14.10.2022 as per Annexure-Q.
The respondent No.2, vide communication dated
31.01.2024 sent to the respondent No.5 has observed that
the petitioner has worked for more than 10 years and his
request for regularization can be considered in accordance
with law. Pursuant to the said communication, the
respondent No.5 sent another communication dated
29.11.2024 at Annexure-T to the respondent No.3,
indicating that the petitioner has completed more than 10
years of uninterrupted service and is eligible to be
regularized as a permanent employee.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
7. Based on such proposal, the respondent No.3
passed the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 at
Annexure-V rejecting the proposal to regularize the
petitioner's services on the ground that since the
petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service, as
per the circular, the petitioner would be entitled to the
benefit provided under the Act. From the aforesaid record
and various orders referred supra, it is evident that the
petitioner was appointed as a Jawan which is a Group D
post, by the respondent No.5 way back on 30.06.1987
until he attained the age of superannuation i.e. on
31.05.2022, he worked with the respondent No.5
uninterruptedly and the appointment of the petitioner was
against a sanctioned post.
8. Keeping these factual matrixes in mind, it would
be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER Vs.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
1
NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD wherein it was held at
paragraph 15 as under:
“ 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over several
years, sometimes spanning more than a decade.
Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in
full, the Employer’s failure to furnish such
records—despite directions to do so—allows an
adverse inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements
in circumstances where the work is permanent in
nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil
ongoing municipal requirements year after year
cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor
agreement. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to recall the broader critique of
indefinite “temporary” employment practices as
done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo
v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826)
in the following paragraphs:
“ 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this
case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers' rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
1
Civil Appeal Nos.8158-8179/2024 dt.31.01.2025
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
economy has led to an increase in precarious
employment arrangements, often characterized
by lack of benefits, job security, and fair
treatment. Such practices have been criticized for
exploiting workers and undermining labour
standards. Government institutions, entrusted
with upholding the principles of fairness and
justice, bear an even greater responsibility to
avoid such exploitative employment practices.
When public sector entities engage in misuse of
temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy
but also sets a concerning precedent that can
erode public trust in governmental operations.
………
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government
institutions, often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-
term obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are
often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,”
even when their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such misclassification deprives
workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees
are frequently dismissed without cause or notice,
as seen in the present case. This practice
undermines the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of
their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions,
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant
in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between them and their regular counterparts,
despite contributions being equally significant.
Their
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with
another. This practice not only perpetuates
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension, provident
fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even
when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families to
undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. M.L.KESARI
2
AND OTHERS has held at paragraphs 9 to 14 as under:
“9. The term “one-time measure” has to be
understood in its proper perspective. This would
normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi
(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , each department or each
instrumentality should undertake a one-time
exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage
or ad hoc employees who have been working for
more than ten years without the intervention of
2
(2010) 9 SCC 247
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
courts and tribunals and subject them to a process
verification as to whether they are working against
vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification
for the post and if so, regularise their services.
10. At the end of six months from the date of
decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , cases
of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees
were still pending before courts. Consequently,
several departments and instrumentalities did not
commence the one-time regularisation process. On
the other hand, some government departments or
instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise
excluding several employees from consideration
either on the ground that their cases were pending
in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such
circumstances, the employees who were entitled to
be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision
in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , will not lose
their right to be considered for regularisation,
merely because the one-time exercise was
completed without considering their cases, or
because the six-month period mentioned in para
53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] has expired.
The one-time exercise should consider all daily-
wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10
years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
without availing the protection of any interim
orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had
held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of
Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , but did not
consider the cases of some employees who were
entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3)
[(2006) 4 SCC 1] , the employer concerned should
consider their cases also, as a continuation of the
one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be
concluded only when all the employees who are
entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of
Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , are so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para
53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is twofold.
First is to ensure that those who have put in more
than ten years of continuous service without the
protection of any interim orders of courts or
tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi
(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered
for regularisation in view of their long service.
Second is to ensure that the
departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate
the practice of employing persons on daily-
wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then
periodically regularise them on the ground that
they have served for more than ten years, thereby
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions
relating to recruitment and appointment. The true
effect of the direction is that all persons who have
worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006
[the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC
1] ] without the protection of any interim order of
any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing
the requisite qualification, are entitled to be
considered for regularisation. The fact that the
employer has not undertaken such exercise of
regularisation within six months of the decision in
Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or that such
exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited
few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to
be considered for regularisation in terms of the
above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1]
as a one-time measure.
12. These appeals have been pending for more
than four years after the decision in Umadevi (3)
[(2006) 4 SCC 1] . The appellant (Zila Panchayat,
Gadag) has not considered the cases of the
respondents for regularisation within six months of
the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or
thereafter.
13. The Division Bench of the High Court has
directed that the cases of the respondents should
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
be considered in accordance with law. The only
further direction that needs to be given, in view of
Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , is that the Zila
Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an
exercise within six months, as a general one-time
regularisation exercise, to find out whether there
are any daily-wage/casual/ad hoc employees
serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such
employees (including the respondents) fulfil the
requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3)
[(2006) 4 SCC 1] . If they fulfil them, their
services have to be regularised. If such an exercise
has already been undertaken by ignoring or
omitting the cases of Respondents 1 to 3 because
of the pendency of these cases, then their cases
shall have to be considered in continuation of the
said one-time exercise within three months. It is
needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfil
the requirements of para 53 of Umadevi (3)
[(2006) 4 SCC 1] , their services need not be
regularised. If the employees who have completed
ten years' service do not possess the educational
qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of
their appointment, they may be considered for
regularisation in suitable lower posts.
14. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
10. Considering the enunciation of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in mind the facts
of the case on hand, it is to be noticed that the petitioner
was engaged as a Jawan by the respondent No.5 since
30.06.1987. He worked for more than 23 years
uninterruptedly and his appointment was against a clear
sanctioned vacancy which also demonstrates that his
appointment and the nature of work was perennial and
essential for the respondent No.5.
11. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the
considered view that the respondent-Authorities have
committed a grave error in concluding that the petitioner
would be entitled the benefit under the provisions of the
Act. Though the petitioner's services have been utilized
for more than 2 decades, his appointment was against a
sanctioned post and the nature of work was perennial, the
Authorities have erred in not regularizing the services of
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
the petitioner as a regular employee for all purposes and
benefits under law.
12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order/communication dated
31.01.2024 at Annexure-R passed by the
respondent No.2 and the order dated
20.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 at
Annexure-V, are set aside.
(iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent
Nos.1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's
representations dated 03.08.2022 and
16.11.2024 at Annexures-N and S, respectively
for regularization, keeping in mind the
observations made supra as well as the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
regularise the services of the petitioner by
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11547
WP No. 202763 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030072722026
extending all the consequential benefits in
accordance with law. The said exercise shall
be completed by the respondents within a
period of 3 months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36