- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB WA No. 1180 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2024 (S-REG) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA) AND: 1. SHRI NINGAPPA GUDAGI S/O DEVANDRAPPA GUDHAGI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O C/O M.N. HOSAGOUDAR NO. 387, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, S. NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE - 570 004. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. AKSHATA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB WA No. 1180 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.12611/2023 (S-REG) DATED 15.04.2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar for the appellants and learned advocate Smt. Akshata Sharma for the respondent. 2. The State of Karnataka and Commissioner, Department of Social Welfare who were the original respondents in the writ petition, have filed this appeal seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 15th April 2024 passed by learned Single Judge, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB WA No. 1180 of 2024 whereby the petition of the respondent-original petitioner came to be allowed. 2.1 Endorsement/order dated 8th February 2023 issued by the Commissioner, Department of Social Welfare came to be set aside and the said authority was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization with adherence to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. 3. The petitioner prayed in the petition to set aside the endorsement dated 8th February 2023, whereby his representation dated 5th December 2022 seeking regularization was rejected. The representation was rejected, stated the petitioner, despite the order passed by this Court dated 16th November 2022 in Writ Petition No.4321 of 2020. The petitioner was a retired daily rated worker who was appointed on 9th March 1985 as Ward Superintendent in the Government General Boys Hostel in Haveri District at Naregal, Haveri District on the daily wage of Rs.10. 3.1 The petitioner was given appointed for 20 days, however, was continued in the employment as there was no other person - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB WA No. 1180 of 2024 available who could fill the post. The petitioner has put in 15 years of service. It was the case of the petitioner that several similarly situated persons came to be regularized in service in view of the orders passed by this Court in different writ petitions, the details of which were mentioned in paragraph 5 of the petition. It was stated that the order in Writ Petition No.4321 of 2022 aforementioned was passed observing that the petitioner’s case for regularization cannot be rejected on the ground that he would not fulfill condition No.4 of the decision of Umadevi (supra). 3.2 It was the case of the petitioner that denial of right of regularization was an arbitrary action and that the petitioner was denied justice despite orders passed in writ petition No.42116- 42253 of 2001 which had gone upto the Supreme Court. It was the case that the representation of the petitioner was declined by the respondents disregarding the decision and order in petition No.4321 of 2020 filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned Single Judge observed that the findings recorded in the order in the aforementioned previous petition underscored the aspect that the petitioner had never approached this Court for protection and that continuance of his services was not based on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB WA No. 1180 of 2024 any interim order. The respondents had continued the petitioner in service for long 15 years, which factum did attract the dictum in Umadevi (supra), entitling the petitioner for the measure of regularization. 4.1 Learned Single Judge in his reasoning highlighted that the right of the petitioner to seek regularization needed favourable consideration in light of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier petitions. Learned Single Judge reproduced the observations in paragraph 7 from the order in petition No.8192 of 1990, which deserves to be recollected to be reproduced, "The endorsement dated 05.12.2019 indicates that the petitioner's request for regularization is rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner would not fulfill condition No.4 laid down in UMADEVI case. Condition No.4 lays down that a person who is continued in service on daily wage basis on the strength of any interim order, such person would not be entitled for regularization. But in the instant case, the petitioner has not filed any writ petition prior to 2001. The petitioner was not continued on daily wage basis on the strength of interim order passed in any writ petition. When the petitioner has not approached the Court prior to 2001 and when the petitioner is not continued on the strength of interim order passed in favour of the petitioner, the question of rejecting petitioner's case solely on the ground that the petitioner was continued in service on daily wage basis only on the strength of interim order passed in favour of the petitioner is baseless. Admittedly the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB WA No. 1180 of 2024 petitioner was not party or petitioner in W.P.No.8192/1990. No material is produced by the respondents to demonstrate that petitioner was a party to the said Writ Petition. Hence, the impugned endorsement requires to be quashed with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the issue in accordance with law, in the light of UMADEVI case, since the petitioner's case for regularization cannot be rejected on the ground that he would not fulfill condition No.4 of UMADEVI case." 4.2 Learned Single Judge addressed the controversy to notice that it was a clear case of the petitioner that completion of 10 years of service by him was not on the strength of an interim order passed by any court. The case of the petitioner was based on the dictum of Umadevi (supra), as he had rendered uninterrupted service under the respondents without the benefit of the court’s order. It was therefore observed that the reliance placed by the respondents and the Government Order dated 6th August 1990 which outlined the conditions for cancellation of the appointment of the casual workers was not applicable. 5. From the above, two factual aspects were established. First was that the petitioner continued in service for more than 10 years uninterruptedly. Secondly was that his continuance in service was not with protective umbrella of interim order passed by any court. The rejection of the representation by the respondents on the basis - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB WA No. 1180 of 2024 of the Government Order was not justified and the decline on the part of the authorities to accept the request of the petitioner was without foundation of facts, rather the facts stood in favour of the petitioner to reap the benefit of Umadevi (supra). It was observed that the State had adopted inconsistent position. 5.1 The argument on the part of the appellant-State was rightly rejected by learned Single Judge that there was an interim order passed in Writ Petition No.12610 of 1993, for, the said order was not an order in rem and could not therefore debilitate the petitioner or operate in his case. In the facts of the case, this Court endorses to the following reasoning of learned Single Judge in paragraph 9, "Essentially, the petitioner's situation does not hit the criteria outlining the Government order dated 06.08.1990 rendering his application inappropriate and unjustifiable. This Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the learned AAG that interim order granted in W.P.No.12610/1993 being an order in rem apply universally and therefore, State resolved not to dismiss all the daily wage employees, whether party or not a party in previous round of litigation." 5.2 There is no gainsaying that the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria to be considered for regularization. The law laid down in Umadevi (supra) operated in favour of the petitioner. The - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12679-DB WA No. 1180 of 2024 rejection of representation and denial to regularization was erroneous in law and not justified in facts. 6. No error could be booked in the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal fails as meritless and it is dismissed. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33