THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI B G HULYAL S/O GURUPADAPPA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO.103460 OF 2026 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE- 560001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER
OF SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
AND SERICULTURE DIRECTORATE,
TH
5 FLOOR GATE-1, M.S BUILDING,
BANGALORE- 560001.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)

AND:

SRI. B.G HULYAL S/O. GURUPADAPPA
AGE: 59 YEARS, WORKING AS
DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF SERICULTURE STATE SECTOR,
JAMKHANDI, BAGALKOT DIST,
R/AT. PATTANASHETTY LAYOUT,
PLOT NO.46, RABAKAVI,
BANAHATTI-587314.

Digitally signed
by PRATIBHA M
PATIL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.13
14:52:09 +0530

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.S.Y.RODGI AND SRI.RANGANATH S.JOIS, ADVOCATES)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION
NO.13462/2024 (AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION); AND
ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )

1. The State is before us calling in question the order
of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi,
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’, for short) whereby the
Tribunal allows the application in Application No. 13462 of 2024
directing regularization of the services of the respondent.

2. The order of the Tribunal reads as follows:
“7. We have perused the averments made in the
application, the documents produced by the applicant vide
Annexures-A1 to A5, citations produced by the learned
counsel for the applicant vide Annexures-A6 to A9 by filing
memo dated 21.04.2025, documents produced by the
learned Additional Government Advocate vide Annexures-
R1 to R4 in the reply statement and also considered the

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

oral submissions made by the learned Counsels on both
sides at the Bar.

8. The applicant has filed I.A.No.I for condonation of
delay of 11 years 5 months and in the affidavit the
reasons for delay has stated are that he had been giving
representations after completion of 10 years of service on
30.03.1997 and he has waited for a long time for
regularise of his service, but the respondents did not
consider his request. For the case of regularisation there
is no bar until he retired and the cause of action is
continuous and every day cause of action arises. He also
submits that the delay is unintentional and bonafide and if
the delay is not condoned, he will be put great irreparable
hardship, loss and injury. Learned Additional Government
Advocate in his reply statement has objected to the
condonation of delay stating that the applicant had joined
for duty on Daily Wage Basis on 1987 and he has filed the
present application on 18.12.2024 i.e., after a lapse of 36
years which is an inordinate delay and therefore, the
application should be dismissed on this ground.

We have considered the reasons submitted by the
learned counsel for the applicant that the cause of action
is continuous as he is seeking regularisation of his service.
On perusal of order of the Hon’ble High Court vide
Annexure-A8 produced by the learned counsel for the
applicant in para 13 it has been discussed about the delay
and the same is produced below for ready reference:-

“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 reasons for differential
treatment meted out to the petitioner vis-à-vis
similarly situated employees. Thus, by filing this

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

petition, the principles of equity and justice are
prayed by the petitioner which necessitated him to
seek relief so sought.”

In view of the above observation of the Hon’ble High
Court and also considering the facts that if delay is not
condoned the applicant will be put to hardship where as
the respondents can always contest the case on merits.
Hence, I.A.I for condonation of delay is allowed and delay
of 11 years 5 months is hereby condoned.

9. On perusal of the material placed before this Tribunal it
emerges that the applicant is seeking a direction from this
Tribunal to respondents to consider and regularise the
services of the applicant as Typist/DEO and as on the date
of completion of 10 years and to extend him all the
consequential monetary benefits including pay fixation,
increment and other service benefits that flow after
regularisation and as has been extended to persons who
have been similarly situated with arrears.

10. The contention of the applicant is that he joined
service on Daily Wage Basis on 30.03.1987. However, in
the reply statement learned Additional Government
Advocate states that he joined on 19.01.1987. Perusal of
Annexure-A1 which is appointment letter of the applicant
reveals that the order dated 30.03.1987 has been passed
stating that the applicant has joined service from
19.01.1987 on daily wage basis. He has put in 3 decades
of uninterrupted service without the aid of any interim
order of the court and all conditions for regularization in
Umadevi’s case are satisfied by the applicant and
therefore, bringing the applicant in Daily Wage Welfare
Act is bad in law and he is entitled for regularization. This
contention has been countered by the learned Additional
Government Advocate stating that the applicant was not
considered for regularization as he has not fulfilled the
conditions prescribed as per the Government Circular
dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure-R3). In the reply statement
he has stated that the claim of the applicant that he was
appointed against clear vacant post is false because in the
letter produced vide Annexure-A4 dated 13.08.2009
communicated from 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent it
has been stated that Daily Wage Employees appointed

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

after 01.07.1984 has to be examined at the government
level as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court order. This
contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate
is not acceptable as plain reading of the communication
nd st
from 2 Respondent to 1 Respondent dated 13.08.2009
reveals that the applicant was appointed on Daily Wage
Basis in the Technical Service Center at Mudhol against a
sanctioned post. The relevant part is extracted below:-

1
“F ¥ÉÊQ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É- gÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è
4 4
£ÉÃªÀÄPÀªÁVgÀÄªÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀASÉå JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, F
£ËPÀgÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ ²æÃ ©.f.ºÀÄ¯Áå¼À, ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ, vÁAwæPÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ
PÉÃAzÀæ, ªÀÄÄzsÉÆÃ¼À, EªÀgÀÄ M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”

The appointment order dated 30.03.1987 vide
AnnexureA1 also reveals that he was appointed against a
vacant post and relevant part of para 1 of the said order is
reproduced below:-

–
“¸ÀzÀåPÌÉ vÁAwæPÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ PÉÃAzÀæ ªÀÄºÁ°AUÀ ¥ÀÆgÀzÀ°è UÀªÀiÁ¸ÀÛ ªÀ -
¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝ SÁ° EzÀÄÝ D eÁUÀPÉÌ M§â ¢£ÀUÀÆ° DzsÁgÀzÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ «rvÀªÉ¤¹ J®è «¢ü «zsÁ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
C£ÀÄ¸Àj¹ ²æÃ §¸ÀªÀgÁd UÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁzÀ¥Áà, ºÀÄ¯Áå¼À EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
19.01.1987
DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¢£ÁAPÀ jAzÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð¨sÁ«
M¦àUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÁQ ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EA¢£ÀªÀgÉUÉ
CªÀjAzÀ ¸ÉÃªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁV ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ F PÁAiÀÄðªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁ£ÀåªÀiÁr DzÉÃ±À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀjUÉ
1987 87
d£ÀªÀj jAzÀ ªÀiÁZïð gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
¸ÀA§¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä «£ÀAw¹zÁÝgÉ.”

11. The second contention of the learned Additional
Government Advocate is that applicant was continued on
Daily Wage Basis as per the order of the Hon’ble High
Court in W.P.No.12610/1993 and 28248-449/1998 dated
22.09.1998 and therefore, he has not fulfilled one of the
condition laid down in Government Circular dated
13.11.2006 issued consequent to Umadevi’s case and
therefore the applicant cannot rely upon the decision of
the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.15337/2024 particularly
para 6 in the said order. Regarding this contention learned
counsel for the applicant in his application as well as I.A.II
for disposal has stated that the applicant has fulfilled all
conditions as stipulated in Umadevi’s case, since order

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

dated 20.10.1994 is applicable to the applicant and
according to that it should have been shown that those
who have been appointed after 01.07.1984 as Daily Wage
Employee should have put in 10 years of service as on
20.10.1994 and also as per the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.6238/2020 connected with
W.P.No.48123/2019 and W.P.No.3552/2024. We have
perused the order in W.P.No.15337/2024, in para 2 the
Hon’ble High Court has discussed and considered about
the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in
W.P.No.12610/1993 while passing the order and in para 4
they have also discussed about the decisions of the
Hon’ble High Court in Malathi Das (Retd.) Now P.B
Mahishi and others Vs. Suresh and others and Nihal
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others
[(2013) 14 SCC 65]. Therefore, this contention of the
learned Additional Government Advocate does not stand.

12. The learned Additional Government Advocate in his
reply statement has also stated that the claim for
regularization as per the Government Order
No.DPAR:2:SLC:1990 dated 06.08.1990 (Annexure-R2)
has not been considered because the said Government
Order pertains to the Daily Wage Employees appointed
prior to 01.07.1984 whereas the present applicant was
appointed on 19.01.1987 i.e., after 01.07.1984. The said
Government Order has been produced by the learned AGA
states that the Government has decided that all the
appointments of casual workers/daily rated workers made
after 01.07.1984 shall stand automatically cancelled
subject to stay order given by Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Hon’ble High Court and this Tribunal. However, the
applicant has continued in the service till today and
therefore, this interpretation of the fact whether he is
continued on the basis of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and Hon’ble High Court or on the basis of reasons
attributable to the respondents failure to regularize his
service before he was brought under Daily Wage
Employee Welfare Act is not clarified nor there is any
material produced by learned Additional Government
Advocate to support his contention. Therefore, this
contention also does not hold good.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

13. It would be pertinent also to note the fact that the
applicant has been brought under Daily Wage Welfare Act
vide Gazette Notification dated 26.03.2014 which has
been contested by the learned counsel for the applicant
stating that though the applicant was eligible to be
regularized as per the Umadevi’s case, but he was
brought under the above Act which is bad in law. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Revanna.S in Civil Appeal No.5292/2019 disposed of
on 09.07.2019 as below:-

”The Appellants rejected the request of the
Respondent for regularization on the ground that he
did not complete 10 years of continued service
without the aid of the interim order passed by the
High Court.

The Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare
Act, 2012 (Act of 2012) was notified on
15.02.2013. Certain benefits pertaining to the
continuance of daily wage employees on completion
of 10 years and the payment of minimum time
scale along with other benefits were provided in the
said Act. The above Act does not contemplate
regularization of daily wagers.

Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for
regularization, the Respondent filed application
Nos.5168-5169 of 2013 which was allowed by the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. A direction was
issued to the Appellants to consider the
regularization of the service of the Respondent.
Dissatisfied with the direction to consider his case
for regularization, the Respondent filed a Writ
Petition in the High Court of Karnataka. On a
consideration of the history of the case, the High
Court issued a positive mandamus to the Appellants
to regularize the service of the Respondent.

Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted
that the Respondent does not have a right for
regularization, especially after the Act of 2012 was
brought into existence. According to him, the
Respondent is entitled to be considered only for the
benefits flowing from the Act.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

In its judgment dated 09.03.2012, the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal held that the
Respondent worked for more than 10 years in a
duly sanctioned post without the benefit or
protection of an interim order passed by any Court
or Tribunal. While holding so, the Tribunal observed
that the rejection of Respondent’s request for
regularization on the ground that he does not
comply with the requirements of paragraph 53 of
the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others1
was erroneous. The said judgment of the Tribunal
has become final as it was not challenged by the
Appellants. In view thereof, the Respondent had a
right to be considered for regularization of his
service in accordance with the judgment in
Umadevi’s case on the basis of the findings
recorded by the Tribunal in its judgment dated
09.03.2012.

The rejection of the request of the Respondent
for regularization of his service in the light of the
Act of 2012 is not correct. It is relevant to note that
the Act of 2012 does not deal with the judgments
which were passed earlier granting the benefit of
regularization to daily wage employees. Therefore,
the judgments of the Tribunal 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1
and the High Court on regularization remain
unaffected. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, we do not see any
reason to interfere with the direction issued by the
High Court to regularize the service of the
Respondent.

Eight weeks’ time is granted to comply with the
order. The Civil Appeal and pending applications
stand dispose of accordingly.”

In view of the above, it is clear that bringing the
applicant under the Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act
2012 cannot be an obstacle to regularize the services of
the applicant.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the
decision of the Hon’ble High Court produced vide

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

Annexures-A8 and A9 cover the case of the applicant as
the facts and circumstances are similar as adjudicated in
those cases. In W.P.No.6238/2020 and connected matter
produced vide Annexure-A8, the Hon’ble High Court in
para 10 has held that the Umadevi case cannot be applied
in a rigid and mechanical manner as the subsequent
clarification by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.L Kesari
stipulates that employees who have completed 10 years
of service in a sanctioned post prior to the pronouncement
of Umadevi judgment are entitled to regularization. The
relevant part of para 10 is reproduced below:-

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 the present case, the applicant is in continuous
service of Sericulture Department and his service is on par
with the regular employees and he has been engaged in
the said service from the date of his appointment. This
fact has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore,
the principle laid down in the above case is applicable to
the present case.

15. In another judgment produced vide Annexure-A9 by
the learned counsel for the applicant, the Hon’ble High
Court has discussed about the principle of regularization
of service as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the following cases:

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

i. Nihal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
others – (2013) 14 SCC 65.
ii. Jaggo Vs. Union of India – 2024 SCC Online SC
3826.
iii. State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L Kesari and
other – (2010) 9 SCC 247.
iv. The Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.100387/2023
decided on 04.09.2024.

In the said Writ Petition vide Annexure-A9 the
petitioner was a Daily Wage Employee in Forest
Department since 01.07.1973 and he had sought benefit
of regularization of his service. After considering the
above aspects, the Hon’ble High Court has held in para 17
of the judgment, it is reproduced below:-

17. The KSAT took Umadevi (supra) as deadline
of the law when living law was marching to
M.L.Kesari's (supra) and after. Even this aspect has
not been properly considered by the KSAT.
Therefore, in the above circumstances, this petition
succeeds and impugned order of KSAT is hereby
quashed. Petitioner's Application No.5053/2021 is
favoured. Further, the respondents are directed to
regularize (not just considering the case for
regularization) services of the petitioner with
retrospective effect from 01.11.1993 and grant all
consequential benefits such as promotion, pension,
so also with all monetary benefits etc., within an
outer limit of three months from today, failing
which, delay will attract interest at the rate of 1%
for the first month and 2% from the next following.
Interest component may be recovered from the
concerned erring officials of the respondents.”

16. In W.P.No.15337/2024 produced by the learned
counsel for the applicant vide Annexure-A5 the Hon’ble
High Court has discussed about the order of this Tribunal
in A.No.6300/2018 dated 06.01.2020 wherein identically
placed applicant Smt. V.S Krithika had approached the
Tribunal and her services were regularized. We have
perused the decision of this Tribunal in A.No.6300/2018,
the facts and circumstances in the said application are
similar to the present application. A plain reading of para
5 of the said order reveals that her application in

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

A.No.2651/2012 of this Tribunal seeking for regularization
of services came to be allowed on 06.11.2012 with a
direction to the respondents to consider her case, which
was challenged by the Government in the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.37338/2013 and same was
dismissed on 22.11.2013. The applicant was issued an
endorsement dated 02.06.2014 by the Government
rejecting the claim of the applicant for regularization.
Further observations of this Tribunal in A.No.6300/2018
are reproduced below for ready reference:-

“Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed
an application before this Tribunal in
A.No.9420/2014 challenging the said endorsement
and to regularize her services as Typist. The said
application came to be dismissed on 28.04.2016 as
devoid of merit. Therefore, the applicant preferred
writ petition No.34340/2016 (S-KSAT) before the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. By order dated
20.07.2016, the Hon’ble High Court in the said Writ
Petition, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
is set aside with a direction that the respondents
shall consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization in accordance with law, in the light of
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Umadevi
case with the clarification that the ground of
continuation in service on account of the so called
interim order of this Court would not be available to
the respondent for denying the benefit of
regularization. But the other aspects shall be
examined in accordance with law and the decision
shall be taken, preferably within a period of four
months from the date of the order. The impugned
order of the Tribunal is set aside and the
endorsement dated 02.06.2014 which was the
subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal is
set aside. Being aggrieved by the same, the
respondents filed Special Leave Petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP
NO.126/2017 and the said petition came to be
dismissed on 20.01.2017.”

From the above, it is clear that the ratio laid down by
the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.34340/2016 has been
confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.126/2017

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

vide its order dated 20.01.2017. Therefore, the said case
is also applicable to the present application.

17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case
and accordingly, we pass the following:-

O R D E R

1. The application is allowed.

2. The respondents are directed to consider the
prayer of the applicant to regularize service
of the applicant as Typist/DEO on the date of
completion of 10 years of service and extend
him all the consequential monitory benefits
including pay fixation, increment and other
service benefits in accordance with law that
flow on the basis of regularization.

3. Time for compliance is four months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.”

3. The respondent's entry into service in the year
1984 is not in dispute. While every other person who was
appointed on daily wages along with the respondent in different
posts have all been regularized, the service of the respondent
was drawn in the list under the Daily Wage Welfare Act, 2012
and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General would
project a solitary circumstance that the respondent is
disentitled to seek any relief at the hands of this Court in the
light of the fact that the services of the petitioner is now drawn

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

under the Daily Wage Welfare Act or Daily Wage Welfare Rules,
as the case would be. He would seek to place reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench dated 12.11.2025 in
Writ Appeal No.100603/2025 and connected matters.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would now seek to place reliance upon a subsequent judgment
of another Division Bench which declines to follow the same
following the judgment of the Apex Court that, merely because
an employee's name is drawn in the list of persons eligible to
be bought under the Daily Wage Welfare Act or the Rules
framed thereunder, would not mean he is disentitled to claim
benefit of regularization for having served more than 37 years
in the case at hand. The order of the subsequent Division
1
Bench in Writ Petition No.104676/2023 is as follows

“9. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court referred to its recent judgments in the case of
Jaggo Vs. Union of India5 and Shripal & Another Vs.
6
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad .

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the

1
DD on 27.03.2026

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

case of Sri P. Junjappa Vs. The Principal Chief
7
Conservator of Forests and Others , wherein at
paragraphs 26 and 27, it is held as under:

“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 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 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

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

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.

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 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.”

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

11. Learned counsel further relied upon the decision of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. N.
8
Ashok Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others ,
wherein at paragraphs 11 and 12, it is held as under:

“Analysis and Findings:

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various
decisions has categorically held that, in such
circumstances, employees who have completed 10
years of service in sanctioned post prior to the
pronouncement of Umadevi supra, are entitled for
regularization. In this regard the decision in
M.L.Kesari and Jaggo (supra) are relied upon. In
M.L.Kesari , the Apex Court clarified as under:

'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'.

The said clarification is taken assistance by this
Court in WP Nos.6238/2020 clubbed with WP
No.49123/2019 vide judgment dated 17.3.2025.

12. In this case, it is a specific plea of the
petitioner that, he was in continuous service in
Forest Department as daily wager and he worked
on par with regular employees. He has been
engaged in said services right from the date of his
initial entry. This fact so asserted by the petitioner
is not denied by any of the respondents. The KSAT
has not appreciated this plea of the petitioner and
non-appreciation of this continuous service of more
than 30 years definitely and squarely falls within
the protective ambit of the principles laid down in
the aforesaid decisions.”

12. In the present case, the KSAT erred in dismissing the
application and denying service benefits to the petitioner,
despite his continuous engagement by the Government.
Merely because the petitioner was extended benefits
under the Act of 2012, he cannot be deprived of his right
to seek regularisation, particularly when his case was
covered under Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

Wage Employees Association and others (cited
supra), having been appointed in the office of respondent
Nos.3 and 4 prior to the cut-off date of 01.07.1984, i.e.,
petitioner being appointed on 26.11.1983. Therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to the same treatment that is meted
out to all the employees who were appointed prior to
01.07.1984 in terms of the Government Orders issued
from time to time, which were issued pursuant to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the Dharwad District
P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association
and others (cited supra). Therefore, the petition
succeeds and the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs
sought. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

13. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed .
ii. The impugned endorsement bearing
No.B1/Shbbandhi/Kshe.Di. Now Ethare/CR/
2020-21/74 dated 20.04.2020 vide Annexure-
th
A6 issued by 4 respondent and impugned
endorsement bearing No.AaPaJi 76 AaASe
2019 dated 07.08.2021 vide Annexure-A10
st
issued by 1 respondent are hereby quashed.

iii. The order of the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), Belagavi, in
Application No.10944 & 10955 of 2021 is
hereby set aside. Consequently, Application
No.10944 & 10955 of 2021 are allowed.

iv. The services of petitioner shall be considered
for regularization in terms of the government
order dated 6.08.1990 at Annexure-A2.

v. The entire process of consideration and
regularization shall be completed within a
period of three (3) months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17940-DB
WP No. 103460 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020069412026

6. In the light of the order of the Division Bench
quoted herein above, we do not find any warrant of
interference with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal quoted
supra.
The petition lacking in merit stands rejected.

Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE

kmv
CT:VH