SRI M B BASAVAIAH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59826-DB
WP No. 16017 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010409972020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 16017 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. B. BASAVAIAH,
S/O BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT MADDIAHNA HUNDI VILLAGE,
BERAMBADI POST,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SRI. R. C. NAGARAJ.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY,
M S BUILDING
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59826-DB
WP No. 16017 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010409972020
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
ARANYA BHAVANA,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560012.
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
PROJECT TIGER, BANDIPURA,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-561126
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSHRAJ C. DESHMUKH, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD.20/26.9.2017
VIDE ANNEXURE-VQUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT
PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4810/2018 BY KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU DTD.20.11.2019
VIDE ANNEXURE-W AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59826-DB
WP No. 16017 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010409972020
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Sri.Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for the
petitioner, as well as Sri.Santoshraj C. Deshmukh, learned
AGA, who represents respondents No.1 to 3.
2. Seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari
and to set aside the order passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru in Application
No.4810/2018 dated 20.11.2019, the applicant therein
filed this writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner/applicant as borne by
record is that he was working as Daily Wager in the
department of Forest. His service as Daily Wager
continued for more than 10 years and therefore, his
services were regularized as Forest Watcher with effect
from 01.01.1990. His pay was fixed at Rs.780/- in the pay
Rs.
scale of 780-1350. His pay scale ought to have been
fixed at Rs.830-1580. He submitted his representations to

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59826-DB
WP No. 16017 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010409972020
remove the anomaly in fixing the basic pay, but he could
not get any relief. He was transferred to Maddur Division
on 03.07.2023 and he was given beat work at Karadikallu
Betta which is a Group 'C' cadre job. He retired from
service on 31.05.2015. He approached the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru by filing
Application No.2398/2009 seeking the relief of change in
his basic pay. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to
consider the proposal sent by the Conservator of Forest
and Director of Tiger Project, Bandipur and issue
necessary orders. However, respondent No.2 i.e. the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest rejected his claim.
4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the petitioner joined service in
the year 1979 and his services were regularized in the
year 1990. Respondents erroneously fixed the salary of
the petitioner at 780-1350. His salary ought to have fixed
at 830-1580. Though there was a direction by the Tribunal

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59826-DB
WP No. 16017 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010409972020
through orders in Application No.2398/2009 to consider
the case of the petitioner, the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forest erroneously dismissed the application of the
petitioner and aggrieved by the same petitioner filed
Application No.4810/2018 before the Tribunal. However,
without considering the fact that the claim of the petitioner
is genuine and the salary is required to be re-fixed, the
Tribunal dismissed the application. Learned counsel also
submitted that non-consideration of the case of the
petitioner to change his basic pay is arbitrary and
discriminatory and therefore the impugned order is
required to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned AGA contended that there is
no infirmity in the impugned order. Learned AGA
submitted that the services of the petitioner were
regularized and he was absorbed in Group 'D' post and
subsequently his pay was also enhanced as per the revised
scale. The basic pay of the petitioner is fixed as per Cadre
and Recruitment Rules. Learned AGA also stated that the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59826-DB
WP No. 16017 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010409972020
pay of the petitioner was fixed in the year 1990 and it was
re-fixed in the year 2004. The Principal Chief Conservator
of Forest has passed a reasoned order as to why the scale
of the petitioner cannot be re-fixed. Finding that there is
no infirmity in the order passed, the Tribunal rightly
dismissed the application of the petitioner and thus there
are no merits in this writ petition.
6. We have gone through the relevant material
that is brought on record. The services of casual/daily
rated employees were regularized through order dated
12.03.1991 with retrospective effect i.e. from 01.01.1990
in the pay scale of 780-1040. The Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest i.e. respondent No.2 herein passed a
reasoned order as to why the claim of the petitioner
cannot be entertained. Tribunal expressing its view that
the order passed is justified and does not require any
interference, dismissed the application of the petitioner
herein. It is not the case of the petitioner that the pay
fixed is not in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59826-DB
WP No. 16017 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010409972020
Rules. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the order
passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is in
deviation of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules or that the
similarly situated employees were given the relief he
sought for. Tribunal discussing the merits of the case,
came to a conclusion that there are no grounds to refix the
salary. We do not find any infirmity in the findings given or
the ultimate conclusion arrived at. Therefore, we are of
the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP, CT:TSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17