SHIVAKUMAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10948-DB
WP No. 200594 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030018542026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 200594 OF 2026 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAKUMAR
S/O MALLANNA GARADI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: UNSKILLED LABOUR,
O/O SUB-REGISTRAR, SHAHAPUR,
R/O. H.NO.1-66,
GARADI CIRCLE,
SATYAM PETH,
POST. LAKSHMIPUR,
TQ. SURPUR,
DIST. YADGIR- 585201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PANDARGE MAHALING MALLIKARJUN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION
AND STAMPS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10948-DB
WP No. 200594 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030018542026
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
REGISTRATION AND
COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU- 560001.
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
YADGIR DISTRICT,
YADGIR- 585201.
3. THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
SHAHAPUR TALUK,
SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR- 585201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2026 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KALABURAGI
BENCH, IN APPLICATION NO.20742/2023 (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10948-DB
WP No. 200594 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030018542026
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging
the order dated 09.01.2026 passed in Application
No.20742 of 2023 by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).
2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are as
under:
It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed
on 05.11.2012 as an unskilled labourer against the
vacant post in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Shahapur, by order of the District Registrar, Yadgiri.
It is a case of the petitioner that the petitioner
worked continuously and signed attendance register
upto 2014. From 2014 onwards, though signatures
were discontinued from the attendance register, the
petitioner continued to work and discharge duties.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10948-DB
WP No. 200594 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030018542026
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation
for regularization of services on 18.10.2022 and
second representation dated 15.06.2023 and also got
issued a legal notice on 19.06.2023. However, the
respondents did not consider the said representations
and legal notice. Therefore, the petitioner
approached the Tribunal in Application No.20742 of
2023 with a request to direct the respondent
authorities to pay the arrears of salary due to the
petitioner and consider the claim of the petitioner for
regularization of services forthwith. The Tribunal
rejected the said application vide order dated
09.01.2026.
3. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated
09.01.2026 passed in Application No.20742 of 2023
by the Tribunal, filed this writ petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner appearing through video conferencing and
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10948-DB
WP No. 200594 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030018542026
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is discharging his duty in terms of the
appointment order dated 05.11.2012 and submitted
representations for regularization of his services and
to pay the salary. The said representations and legal
notice were not considered. He submits that in order
to show that the petitioner was discharging his duties
has produced the copy of the attendance register.
He submits that the said aspect was not considered
by the Tribunal and committed an error in passing
the impugned order. The impugned order passed by
the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous. On these
grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
Per contra
6. , learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents submits that the
petitioner was initially appointed by order dated
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10948-DB
WP No. 200594 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030018542026
05.11.2012 for a period of three years and
thereafter, the appointment order was not renewed.
After the expiry of the contract period, the petitioner
is not working and he also submits that the
attendance register produced by the petitioner
pertains to February 2014 and not thereafter. He
submits that the Tribunal has rightly observed in
paragraph-8 of the impugned order that the
petitioner has failed to produce the extension order.
He submits that there is no privity of contract
between the petitioner and respondents after
February 2014. Hence, on this ground, he prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was
appointed by virtue of an appointment order dated
05.11.2012 for a period of three years. Thereafter,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10948-DB
WP No. 200594 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030018542026
the respondents did not extend the period. The
petitioner has not produced any record to establish
that after February, 2014, the petitioner continued to
discharge his duties. In the absence of any material
on record, the Tribunal was justified in recording its
finding in paragraph-8 of the impugned order which
reads as follows:
“8. In the present case, it is noticed that
there is hardship on part of applicant as there is
no contractual appointment or even evidence of
temporary appointment. By his own admission he
has been working on oral instruction. As such the
applicant cannot be treated as either daily wages
or casual employee. The service of applicant was
initially issued on 05.11.2012 as unskilled labor
for miscellaneous work for Rs.2000/- under
Government Order dated 26.06.2012. The
applicant worked in that capacity till February
2014. This order was not renewed for any further
extension.”
9. The Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that
the petitioner has failed to produce further extension
of appointment order dated 05.11.2012. In the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10948-DB
WP No. 200594 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030018542026
absence of the extension order, the petitioner has no
right to continue in service and when the petitioner
has no right to continue in service after the contract
period is over, he is not entitled for regularization.
The Tribunal considering the entire material on
record has rightly passed the impugned order. We
do not find any error in the impugned order passed
by the Tribunal. Hence, we decline to interfere with
the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
dismissed
The writ petition is .
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
NB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17/Ct:pk