SRI. JAVEED vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
WP No. 10985 of 2020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND


THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 10985 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

SRI. JAVEED
S/O LATE ABDUL SHUKURA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND IDGA,
ADLIMANE ROAD
HASSAN - 573 121.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SPARSH SHETTY, ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PRE DIVISION
CHICKMAGALUR - 577 101.

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PRE SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN - 573 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. DESHMUKH, AGA FOR R1, 3 & 4
SRI ASHOK N NAYAK, ADV. FOR R2)











Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI

Location: High
Court of Karnataka

- 2 -
WP No. 10985 of 2020



THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
10.06.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1462/2017 BY KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE AS PER
ANNEXURE-C AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE
SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM COMPLETION OF
10 YEARS OF SERVICE I.E WITH EFFECT FROM 10.9.1994 WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING THE PENSIONARY
BENEFITS.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 29.09.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY , S.G.PANDIT J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for
short “Tribunal”) is before this Court, questioning the
order dated 10.06.2020 in Application No.1462/2017
passed by the Tribunal, rejecting petitioner’s prayer for
regularization of his service w.e.f. 10.09.1984.

- 3 -
WP No. 10985 of 2020


2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Sparsh Shetty for the
petitioner; learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.S.C.Deshmukh for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 as well
as Sri.Ashok Nayak, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis
as Literate Assistant in the office of Assistant Executive
Engineer, P.W.D. Sub-Division, Chickmagalur on
10.09.1984. It is submitted that, subsequently, the
petitioner was transferred to the office of the Assistant
Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat Engineering Sub-
Division, Hassan where he reported to duty on
23.11.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that his case
was recommended for regularization of his services.
Further, it is stated that, under O.M. dated 15.02.2013,
some of the daily wage employees were regularized
subject to certain conditions. In the meanwhile the
petitioner was deputed from one Office to another Office.
The first respondent by order dated 08.05.2014, ordered

- 4 -
WP No. 10985 of 2020


that the daily wage employees appointed after 01.07.1984
are admitted for the benefit available under Karnataka
Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (for short “2012
Act”) wherein, name of the petitioner was found at
Sl.No.367. It is stated that, at that point of time, the
petitioner accepted the same. Thereafter, the petitioner
attained the age of superannuation on 30.05.2015 and
retired from service. On his retirement, the petitioner
received gratuity and other benefits to which he was
entitled to under 2012 Act. Long after his retirement, the
petitioner submitted a representation on 26.10.2018
seeking regularization of his service on completion of 10
years of service i.e., regularization in the year 1994.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
though the petitioner was extended benefit under 2012
Act, he was also entitled for regularization of his service.
Further, learned counsel would submit that other
employees appointed along with the petitioner were
regularized and the petitioner seeks parity with them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the

- 5 -
WP No. 10985 of 2020


judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PREM RAM v./s
UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL & NIRMAN NIGAM reported in
(2015) 11 SCC 255 and JIVANLAL v/s PRAVIN
KRISHNA reported in (2016) 15 SCC 747 to claim
parity in the matter of regularization.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further
submit that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing
the prayer of the petitioner for regularization on the
ground that the petitioner accepted the benefits granted
under 2012 Act by submitting that, mere acceptance of
benefit under 2012 Act would not deprive the petitioner to
seek regularization. Thus, learned counsel for the
petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petition.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA would submit that
the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization since
the petitioner is not appointed to a sanctioned post.
Moreover, it is submitted that when the petitioner
accepted the benefits under 2012 Act and also when he
accepted all the benefits of his superannuation that were

- 6 -
WP No. 10985 of 2020


available under 2012 Act, it is not open for the petitioner
to seek for regularization, moreover after more than 2
years from the date of his superannuation. Further,
learned AGA would submit that the petitioner cannot seek
parity with similarly situated persons or persons who were
appointed along with the petitioner said to have been
regularized, for the reason that the petitioner was initially
appointed as a daily wager at Chickmagalur Zilla
Panchayat and was transferred to Hassan subsequently.
Thus, learned AGA would pray for dismissal of the writ
petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
Tribunal.

7. The petitioner has not placed on record the order of
appointment as Literate Assistant on daily wage basis.
However, he has placed on record O.M. dated 23.11.2000
(Annexure-A1) which indicates that the petitioner was

- 7 -
WP No. 10985 of 2020


transferred from Chickmagalur to Hassan. The petitioner
has admitted that on coming into force of 2012 Act, he
was granted benefits available under the Act. The
petitioner has also admitted that he received all the
benefits available to a daily wager under 2012 Act on his
retirement or superannuation, such as gratuity and other
benefits.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to claim parity,
places reliance on Attendance Register at Annexure-A24
by stating that he was working along with one
Sri.C.A.Vasantha Gowda and Sri.C.S.Kumaraswamy, who
are regularized. It is noticed that the petitioner was
transferred from Chickmagalur Zilla Panchayat to the
office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Hassan Zilla
Panchayat, Engineering Sub-Division, Hassan in the year
2000. After his transfer, those two persons appear to
have been regularized in the Office of the Zilla Panchayat,
Chickmagalur. The petitioner has not placed on record
any material to indicate whether the persons who were
working along with him at Hassan Zilla Panchayat were

- 8 -
WP No. 10985 of 2020


regularized or not when the petitioner was transferred
from Chickmagalur to Hassan, when each Zilla Panchayat
is a separate Unit and when petitioner is working at
Hassan Zilla panchayath, he cannot claim parity with
regularized employees of Chickmagalur Zilla Panchayat.

9. In PREM RAM case (supra), the petitioner therein
established regularization of his juniors. Further, Rules
for regularization was available in the Jal Nigam
where the appellant therein was working. In that
circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed
regularization on parity.

10. In JIVANLAL case (supra), the appellant therein
placed on record the orders passed by the respondents
therein in the case of similarly situated persons. In the
instant case, the petitioner has not placed on record any
regularization order of similarly situated persons from the
Zilla Panchayat, Hassan. Therefore, the said decision
would have no application to the facts of the present case.
Since the petitioner is provided with all the benefits that

- 9 -
WP No. 10985 of 2020


were available to a daily wager under 2012 Act, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .



Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE






MPK
CT:bms