01Facts
The petitioners, contractual employees of the Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, sought, among other reliefs, to quash University orders dated 29 November 2018 and 8 November 2012, consideration of pay-commission benefits, and consideration of their claims concerning regularisation.
pp. 21–22After hearing the parties, petitioners’ counsel requested that the petition be disposed of in terms of Smt. Lakshmi v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries, W.P. No. 7911 of 2026, with liberty to submit a fresh representation. The State and University respondents agreed to consider such a representation in accordance with law.
p. 2202Issues
i.Whether the petition should be disposed of in terms of the order in Smt. Lakshmi, while reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation.
pp. 22–23ii.Whether the respondents should be directed to consider any such representation, and within what period.
pp. 22–23, 47–4803Law Applied
The Court disposed of the petition by reference to its order in Smt. Lakshmi, which directed reconsideration of a regularisation claim in light of Nagendra and Others v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries Sciences University, W.P. No. 34001 of 2019, the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 1185 of 2021, and the Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal No. 5586 of 2024.
pp. 23–47Those authorities were cited in the incorporated order for the proposition that the University must consider the relevant regularisation claim in light of the prior judicial directions and applicable law.
pp. 23–4704Reasoning
The Court acted on the petitioners’ request for disposal by reference to Smt. Lakshmi and the respondents’ undertaking to consider a fresh representation.
pp. 22–23It therefore issued procedural directions for submission and consideration of that representation, without examining the merits of the petitioners’ claims or deciding whether they qualified for regularisation, pay-commission benefits, or other reliefs.
pp. 47–4805Holding
The petition was disposed of in terms of Smt. Lakshmi.
pp. 47–48The petitioners were granted one month from receipt of the order to submit a fresh representation; if submitted, the concerned respondents must consider it and pass appropriate orders within six weeks, bearing in mind Smt. Lakshmi and in accordance with law. No substantive relief on regularisation or monetary benefits was granted in this order.
pp. 47–48Original Court PDF
MR H B SHANKARvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
