STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI H MOHAMMED ZAKIR S/O H. NISAR AHAMED
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT APPEAL NO.100802 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY IT’S SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
TH
9 FLOOR, VISHWESHWARIAH TOWERS,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMAHT, HCGP)
AND:
1. SRI. H.MOHAMMED ZAKIR S/O. H. NISAR AHAMED
AGE: 54 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
ENGINEERING SECTION,
BALLARI CITY CORPORATION,
BESIDE GANDHI BHAVAN, GADIGI CHENNAPPA
CIRCLE (ROYAL CIRCLE), BALLARI-583101,
R/O. MEHBOOBA MANZIL,
OPP. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA,
WARD NO. 28, DOLLARS COLONY,
BANDIHATI, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583102.
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.31
11:43:24 +0530
2. SRI. M.AKHIL AHAMED S/O. M. ABDUL NABI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
ENGINEERING SECTION,
BALLARI CITY CORPORATION,
BESIDE GANDHI BHAVAN,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
GADIGI CHENNAPPA CIRCLE (ROYAL CIRCLE),
BALLARI-583101 R/O: NUMBER 143 & 144,
WARD NO 29, BABA PARADISE,
"MANIYAR MANZIL" BEHIND MASJID-E-HASHMI,
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES COLONY,
BELEGAL ROAD, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583102.
3. SMT. M.T.RATHNAMMA, W/O. V.V.SHARMA,
AGE: 61 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
ENGINEERING SECTION,
BALLARI CITY CORPORATION,
BESIDE GANDHI BHAVAN,
GADIGI CHENNAPPA CIRCLE (ROYAL CIRCLE),
BALLARI-583101, R/O: NO.122, WARD NO.30,
"VEERABHADRESHWARA KRUPA",
RAMANJENEYA NAGAR,
BEHIND T.B.SANITORIUM,
BELAGAL ROAD, COWL BAZAAR,
BALLARI-583102.
4. SRI. R.KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. R. RAJANNA,
AGE 58 YEARS, WORK INSPECTOR (CIVIL),
ENGINEERING SECTION,
BALLARI CITY CORPORATION,
BESIDE GANDHI BHAVAN,
GADIGI CHENNAPPA CIRCLE (ROYAL CIRCLE),
BALLARI-583101 R/O: HOUSE NO.86,
WARD NO.6, BANGALORE ROAD LEFT SIDE,
BANDIMOTE, BALLARI-583101.
5. SRI. P. SATHYNARAYANA SHARMA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.,
SMT. P. KALPANA
W/O. LATE SRI. P. SATYANARAYANA SHARMA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: DOOR NO.17/24 S N PET ESHWAR GUDDI
COMPOUND, BALLARI-583103.
6. P. HARSHITA
D/O. LATE SRI. P. SATYANARAYANA SHARMA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: DOOR NO.17/24, S.N PET ESHWAR GUDDI,
COMPOUND, BALLARI-583103.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
7. SHRAVANI P.
D/O. LATE SRI. P. SATYANARAYANA SHARMA,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: DOOR NO.17/24 S N PET ESHWAR GUDDI,
COMPOUND, BALLARI-583103.
8. SRI. RAMESH GANJI S/O. SANNA VEERAPPA GANJI,
AGE 51 YEARS, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
HEALTH SECTION, BALARI CITY
CORPORATION BESIDE GANDHI BHAVAN GADIGI
CHANNAPPA CIRCLE, (ROYAL CIRCLE),
BALLARI-583101, R/O. FIRST CROSS,
NEHRU COLONY, OPPOSITE RAILWAY TRACK,
BALLARI-583103.
9. N. SUBBARAYADU S/O. CHINNA NAGAPPA,
AGE 63 YEARS, RETD. WORK INSPECTOR (CIVIL),
ENGINEERING SECTION,
BALLARI CITY CORPORATION,
GADIGI CHENNAPPA CIRCLE (ROYAL CIRCLE),
R/O: HOUSE NO.43, WARD NO.16,
S.R.P. COLONY, BALLARI-583101.
10. SRI. I. RAVISHANKAR S/O. I.P. GAJENDRA NAIDU,
AGE: 60 YEARS, RETD. ELECTRICIAN GRADE-1,
ENGINEERING SECTION,
BALLARI CITY CORPORATION,
BESIDE GANDHI BHAVAN GADIGI
CHENNAPPA CIRCLE (ROYAL CIRCLE),
BALLARI-58310,
R/O: PLOT NO 10/1B, WARD NO.30,
TILAK NAGAR, OPPOSITE CHURCH,
CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583104.
11. THE BALLARI CITY CORPORATION,
BESIDE GANDHI BHAVAN GADIGI
CHENNAPPA CIRCLE (ROYAL CIRCLE),
BALLARI-583101, REPRESENTED BY IT'S
COMMISSIONER.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHETAN T.LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.102653/2024 (S-RES) DATED 02.12.2025; AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI)
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated
02.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.102653/2024 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the
respondent Nos.1 to 10 herein was allowed whereby the
learned Single Judge quashed the impugned endorsement
nd
dated 21.08.2023 passed by the 2 appellant and directed the
appellants to consider the case of the respondent Nos.1 to 10
for regularization of service in accordance with law within an
outer limit of 12 weeks.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 to 10
herein are the petitioners in the writ petition. They were initially
appointed on daily wage, temporary basis between the years
1986 and 1988 as Second Division Assistants, Work Inspectors
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
(Civil), Junior Health Inspectors and Electricians Grade-I in the
Ballari City Corporation. Respondent Nos.1 to 10s continued in
service for nearly 35 years. Recognizing their continuous
service, the Ballari City Corporation by order dated 10.12.1991
extended to them time scales of pay, basic pay enhancement,
HRA and DA. Most of the respondents have reached
superannuation during the pendency of their claims.
Respondent No.11 i.e. Ballari City Corporation submitted
multiple formal proposals recommending the regularization of
the respondents’ services vide letters dated 18.12.2015,
02.04.2016 and 13.10.2017. Respondent Nos.1 to 10 therefore
approached this Court in W.P. No.100799/2021. This Court by
order dated 24.11.2022 disposed of the petition directing the
appellants to consider the case of respondent Nos.1 to 10 for
regularization in the light of the Corporation’s proposal dated
13.10.2017 within four months. As the said order was not
complied, respondent Nos.1 to 10 initiated contempt
proceedings in CCC No.100222/2023. On 21.08.2023, the
appellants issued an endorsement rejecting the claim for
regularization on the ground that respondent Nos.1 to 10 did
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
not fulfill the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v.
1
Umadevi . Aggrieved by which, respondent Nos.1 to 10
preferred W.P. No.102653/2024 seeking a writ of certiorari to
nd
quash the endorsement dated 21.08.2023 issued by the 2
respondent therein and for a mandamus directing their
regularization from the date of completion of 10 years of
continuous service with all consequential benefits.
3. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
learned Single Judge observed that, the uninterrupted service
of nearly 35 years rendered by the petitioners was an
undisputed matter of record and further relying on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam,
2
Ghaziabad held that keeping employees on daily
wage/temporary arrangements for decades while extracting
regular municipal duties amounts to exploitation of human
labour. The learned Single Judge relying on plethora of
judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Narendra Kumar
1
( 2006) 4 SCC 1
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
3
Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand , State of Karnataka v. M.L.
4 5
Kesari , Chander Mohan Negi v. State of H.P. , Dharam
6
Singh v. State of U.P. and this Court in W.P.
No.105364/2025 c/w W.P. No. 105664/2025 wherein the
learned Single Judge held that Umadevi’s case (supra) was
intended to prevent illegal backdoor entries, not to punish long-
serving workers whose initial appointments were at most
“irregular” and consequently, quashed the impugned
endorsement dated 21.08.2023 and directed the State to
consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in
accordance with law within an outer limit of 12 weeks.
Aggrieved by this order, the State has filed this intra-court
appeal.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for the State vehemently contends that the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that they were not given sufficient
opportunity to substantiate their case and not even one
opportunity to file a statement of objections before the order
3
(2018) 8 SCC 238
4
(2010) 9 SCC 247
5
(2020) 5 SCC 732
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
was passed. She further submits that the learned Single Judge
ignored the conditions stipulated in the case of Umadevi
(supra), which are as follows:
(i) the person must have been appointed to a clear vacant
sanctioned post;
(ii) each case must be scrutinised individually against the
conditions;
(iii) and the one-time measure applied to those who had served ten
years or more as on the date of that judgment and was never
meant to be a regular practice for future appointments .
5. The learned HCGP further relies on Malathi Das & Ors. v.
7
Suresh Chand Sen & Ors
. to contend that temporary employees
cannot bypass C&R Rules. The respondent Nos.1 to 10 were not
appointed against sanctioned posts through open competitive
selection and relied on the Circular dated 06.08.1990 issued by
the Government which restricted regularization to daily wagers
appointed on or before 01.07.1984, stipulating automatic
cancellation of subsequent daily wage engagements. The
respondents lacked prescribed minimum qualifications at entry
and were engaged on daily wages without sanctioned cadre
posts rendering their initial appointments “illegal” rather than
7
(2014) 13 SCC 249
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
“irregular”. Hence, on these grounds she submits that the
impugned order warrants interference.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 10 supports the impugned order. The learned counsel
submits that the respondents served continuously for 35 years
in essential municipal posts and were granted time scales of
pay vide resolution dated 10.12.1991. Denying regularization
after decades of service and retirement constitutes manifest
unfairness and exploitation. The counsel relies on the
judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Kesari
(supra) and in the case of Umadevi (supra) and submits that
the appointments are made without open competition but
against perennial duties are at most 'irregular' and are eligible
for regularization. They further submit that C&R Rules did not
exist at the time of respondents’ appointment (1986–1988) .
The issue is directly governed by the Supreme Court rulings in
Narendra Kumar Tiwari’s case (supra), Shripal’s case (supra) ,
Dharam Singh’s case (supra) , and this Court in the case of Smt.
Shankremma v. Agriculture Officer
(W.P. No.83563-83564/2012,
affirmed in SLP No. 11903/2022). He further contend that a
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
similar situation of daily wage employees in Gulbarga City
Corporation and Group D staff in Ballari City Corporation were
regularized. Denying equal treatment to the respondents
violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he
submits that no interference is called for in an intra-court
appeal unless the order is palpably wrong.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the material
on record and submissions made by the learned counsel of
either parties and perused the impugned order.
8. Having heard the learned counsel, the following points
arise for our consideration:
i. Whether Regularization of the respondents could
be denied merely on the ground that they were not
appointed against sanctioned post?
ii. Whether the guideline dated 06.08.1990 disentitles
the respondents to regularization?
iii. Whether the impugned judgment warrants
interference in the appeal?
9. Point No.(i) : It is not in dispute that respondent
Nos.1 to 10 have continuously worked for more than 3
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
decades. The work they performed was of a regular and
perennial nature. The appellants have placed no material to
show that respondent Nos.1 to 10 were unqualified, or that
their initial engagement was by an incompetent authority or
through any backdoor process. In Umadevi’s case (supra),
the constitution bench while disapproving regularization of
illegal appointments, recognized in para 53 that irregular
appointments of duly qualified persons who had worked for
10 years or more, without the intervention of Courts, ought
M.L. Kesari
to be regularized as one time measure. The case
(supra) it is clarified that this exception must be
implemented in substance.
8
10. In Nihal singh v. State of Punjab , the Supreme Court
held that where a State has used a person’s services for
years against a genuine need, it cannot defeat the claim to
Regularization by pleading the absence of sanctioned post,
since creating posts lay within its own power. The same
9
approach was taken in Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar and
8
(2013) 14 SCC 65
9
(2015) 8 SCC 265
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
Narendra Kumar Tiwari . In those cases, the court cautioned
against applying Umadevi ’s case in a manner that
perpetuates long term and Ad-hoc engagement. In Shiv
10
Narayan Nagar v. State of U.P. the Court described the
practice of keeping employees temporary for decades as
11
exploitative. In Jaggo v. Union of India , the Supreme Court
held that labels such as “temporary” or “not on a sanctioned
post” cannot override the reality of long years of regular
service. It further held that Umadevi was never intended to
shield the exploitation of long serving workers engaged on
perennial work. Applying these principles we hold that the
respondent’s appointment were irregular and not illegal.
The State having benefitted from their services for over 3
decades cannot rely on its inaction in not sanctioning post to
deny them regularization. Therefore, the point (i) is
answered in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 10.
11. Point No.(ii): As regards the guideline dated
06.08.1990 which states that the appointment of daily wage
and causal workers made after 0107.1984 shall stand
10
(2018) 13 SCC 432
11
(2024) SCC Online SC 3286
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
automatically cancelled. The record shows that the
guideline was never implemented against the respondent
Nos.1 to 10. No order of disengagement or termination was
ever passed based upon the said circular. On the contrary
the appellants continued to take their service and paid them
for then 3 decades after the guideline was issued.
12. Having acquiesced the continuance of respondent
Nos.1 to 10 for so long, the appellant cannot invoke the
guidelines that they themselves abandoned. The State
cannot treat the respondents as, validly engaged for 30
years and then when they seek for regularization, treat their
engagement as void from 1990. The State cannot aprobate
and reprobate. Such conduct is impermissible.
13. The cutoff date of 01.07.1984 divides a
homogenous class of employees performing identical duties
and is applied to deny regularization after more than 3
decades, the classification bears no rational nexus to any
legitimate object. It falls foul of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
Point (ii) is accordingly answered against the appellants.
14. We find that the learned Single Judge had dealt
exhaustively with every contentions advanced by the
appellants and has passed a well reasoned order in
conformity with binding precedents of the Apex Court. The
appellants have not pointed out any perversity, error of law,
or failure to consider material evidence. In an intra court
appeal, a well considered judgment of the learned single
Bench does not warrant interference merely because
another view may be possible.
15. We are also conscious that the respondent Nos.1 to
10 have given the best years of their life to the State and
are on the verge of retirement. Denying them regularization,
pension and retiral benefits at this stage would be harsh,
inequitable and contrary to the constitutional mandate of
fairness in public employment.
Point (iii) is accordingly answered against the appellants.
16. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this
appeal and pass the following order:
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16045-DB
WA No. 100802 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175392026
ORDER
i. The writ appeal is dismissed. The order dated
02.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ petition No.102653/2024 is affirmed.
ii. The appellants shall regularize the services of
respondent Nos.1 to 10 with effect from the date
on which they completed 10 years of service as
directed by the learned Single Judge with all
consequential benefits including the fixation of pay
and counting of service for pension and other
retiral benefits.
iii. The appellants shall complete exercise within three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the judgment. In respect of any respondent who
retires before the exercise being completed,
regularization shall be granted notionally for the
purpose of retiral benefits.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
kmv
CT:VH