01Facts
The petitioners challenged the University’s reinstatement order dated 3 January 2025, particularly Condition No. 6, and sought reinstatement with benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012
p. 5During the proceedings, the University produced a modified reinstatement order dated 24 October 2026, withdrawing Condition No. 6 and the other conditions in the original order
p. 6The petitioners nevertheless sought a direction to extend the benefits of the 2012 Act; the University stated that no representation seeking those benefits had been made
p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether the petition remained for consideration after the University withdrew the challenged conditions through a modified reinstatement order
p. 6ii.2. Whether the Court should direct the University to extend benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012, absent a prior representation by the petitioners
p. 703Law Applied
The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
p. 5The Court’s treatment of the claim under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 was that the University should consider eligibility for the Act’s benefits upon receiving a representation supported by necessary documents, and decide it in accordance with law by a reasoned order
p. 704Reasoning
The modified reinstatement order removed the conditions challenged in the petition, so the original challenge no longer required adjudication
p. 6The separate request for statutory benefits could not be granted in the absence of a representation to the University. The Court therefore left the petitioners at liberty to make one, with supporting documents, for the University’s consideration in accordance with law
p. 705Holding
The Court held that the petition did not survive for consideration following the modified reinstatement order and disposed of it.
p. 6It did not direct immediate extension of benefits under the 2012 Act; instead, it permitted the petitioners to submit a representation, which the University must consider and decide by a reasoned order in accordance with law
p. 7Original Court PDF
ARJUN SANTABANAVAR S/O. SHIDDAPPAvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
