- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB WP No. 3413 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.3413 OF 2024 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. PALANI C S/O SHRI CINNAPAYAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, CLTS, O/O THE COMMISSIONER GST-1, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. VENKATESH K S/O SHRI CHIKKADASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CLTS, O/O THE COMMISSIONER GST-1, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. R. SUDHAKAR S/O SHRI RAJU R, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, CLTS, O/O THE COMMISSIONER GST-1, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB WP No. 3413 of 2024 2. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHUBHA S.A, CGC FOR R1; SRI. B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND GROUNDS ENUMERATED ABOVE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT ORDER DATED 25/01/2023 IN MA NO.123/2022 PASSED BY THE CAT BENCH BANGALORE (PALANI.C & OTHERS VS. UOI AND OTHERS) ANNEXURE-A, MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE AND WRIT PETITION MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 07/06/2016 IN O.A.NO.1293-1295/2015 AND REGULARISE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE THEY COMPLETED TEN YEARS OF SERVICE 1.7.2006 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, 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 MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB WP No. 3413 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard learned counsel, Sri.T.C.Gupta appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.Pramod learned counsel for respondent No.2, as well as learned CGC, Smt.Subha.S, for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.C.Gupta would submit that the petitioners are before this Court questioning the order dated 25.01.2023, in Misc. Application No. 123/2022 in O.A.Nos.1293- 1295/2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Learned counsel would submit that the miscellaneous application was filed to initiate execution proceedings against the respondents for compliance of the directions issued on 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos.170/1293-1295/2015. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB WP No. 3413 of 2024 3. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application erroneously, without appreciating the fact that the Tribunal by order dated 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos.1293-1295/2015 directed that benefits of judgment in Annexure-A2, A3 and A4 i.e., order dated 27.01.2012 in (i) O.A. No.128/2008, (ii) order passed in O.A.No.145/2008, as well as (iii) order dated 18.06.2013 in Writ Petition No.70873/2012 and connected matters be extended. The learned counsel would further submit that in the orders referred, there was a direction to regularize the services of the applicants therein and to grant the consequential benefits. In view of the disposal of the applications filed by the petitioners in terms of the earlier order of the Tribunal as well as the High Court, the petitioners would be entitled for regularization as well as consequential benefits thereon. Learned counsel would also submit that the Tribunal instead of examining the claim of the petitioners for regularization, dismissed the miscellaneous application only on the ground of inordinate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB WP No. 3413 of 2024 delay. It is submitted that the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit of the order dated 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos. 1293-1295/2015. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.B.Pramod for respondent No.2, as well as learned CGC, Smt.Subha.S, for respondent No.1 would support the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and further would submit that in O.A.Nos. 1293-1295/2015, there was no prayer for regularization and the petitioners had only sought for a direction to grant temporary status, on par with other similarly working casual labourers under Casual Labourers (Grant Of Temporary Status And Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that unless the services of the petitioners are regularized, they would not be entitled for continuity of service backwages, pension scheme benefit or any other consequential benefits. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB WP No. 3413 of 2024 Further, the learned counsel would bring to the notice of this Court that O.A.No.119/2023, praying for regularization of the service of the petitioners is pending before the Tribunal. As such, the petitioners are not entitled for the prayer sought in the present writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that would fall for our consideration is : “Whether the impugned order in the writ petition requires interference at the hands of this Court?” 6. Our answer would be in ‘negative’ for the following reasons: The grievance of the petitioners is that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos.1293-1295/2015 is not implemented and miscellaneous application filed for a direction to initiate execution proceedings for compliance of the direction is rejected on the ground of delay. Application in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB WP No. 3413 of 2024 O.A.Nos.1293-1295/2015 was filed with the following prayers: “a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondents to grant the Applicants a temporary status on par with other similarly working Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme to Govt. of India, 1993; b) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction, directing the Respondents to give the continuity of service, backwages, Pension scheme and all other consequential benefits which they are legally entitled to meet the ends of justice; c) Grant to the Applicants the costs of this application and pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit to pass in the fact and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” 7. In the above stated O.A., the petitioners had not prayed for regularization of their services. What was prayed was for a direction to grant the applicants a temporary status on par with other similarly working - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB WP No. 3413 of 2024 casual labourers in accordance with Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the prayer of the petitioners at O.A. above for grant of temporary status is complied by issuing an Order No.68/2017, dated 25.02.2017 which is extracted in the impugned order. The second prayer of the petitioners in the O.A. would not arise for the present and the petitioners would be entitled for those benefits only on regularization of their service. The Tribunal on the submission of the counsel appearing for the parties in O.A.Nos.1293-1295/2015 disposed of the application, recording that the matter is covered by Annexures-A2, A3 and A4. When there was no prayer for regularization, the petitioners placing reliance on Annexures-A2, A3 and A4 in the said O.A. is misplaced as such, they cannot seek for implementation of the order dated 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos.170/1293-1295/2015. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB WP No. 3413 of 2024 8. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, O.A. No.119/2023 filed by the petitioners is pending before the Tribunal, wherein the petitioners have sought for regularization of their services. In the above circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36