- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22300 WP No. 22628 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22628 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: A M SRINIVASA S/O MALLAPPA AGE 46 YEARS OCCUPATION ELECTRICIAN R/O NO 299/B HUTTA COLONY AT POST BHADRAVATHI - 577301 DISTRICT SHIMOGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S R KULKARNI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHIMOGA AT POST SHIMOGA - 577202. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR VISVESVARAYYA TOWER DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BHOJEGOWDA T KOLLER, AGA FOR R2 & R3: SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO: 149731/DWG/EST-4/CR-001./18-19 (31083/18-19) DATED: 7.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO:14973- DWG/EST-4/CR-001/18-19 (310831/18-19) DATED: 7.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22300 WP No. 22628 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1 – Town Municipal Council vide Annexure-G, whereby the petitioner’s case for regularization to the post of Electrician in the first respondent was rejected. 2. The respondent No.1, by resolution dated 25.05.1998 vide Annexure-A resolved to appoint the petitioner on daily wage basis as an Electrician. Accordingly, appointment order was issued on 12.08.1999 vide Annexure-B, appointing him with retrospective effect from 21.07.1999 subject to approval from the Government. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.03.2011 for regularization of his services, along with back wages from the date of his appointment, i.e., from 21.07.1999. Since the same was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22300 WP No. 22628 of 2021 not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.50086/2013. This Court, by order dated 17.09.2018 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.03.2011. The respondent No.1, by order dated 07.12.2019 vide Annexure-G, rejected the representation of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The specific case of the respondents is that, after the appointment order was issued, he was not coming to the office regularly. Inspite of giving number of warnings, he was not coming to the work. To that effect, a resolution was passed on 03.10.2000, removing the petitioner from service. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that from July 2000, the petitioner was not working, whatever the salary he was entitled as daily wage employee, that has been paid. Since he has not worked for continuous period of ten years, but worked for only two years i.e., from 1998 to 2000, he is not entitled for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22300 WP No. 22628 of 2021 regularization. Accordingly, respondent No.1 sent a letter to respondent No.2 that the petitioner was not working from July 2000. On the basis of the communication vide Annexure-E dated 21.12.2018, the impugned communication vide Annexure-G has been issued stating that as per the resolution dated 03.10.2000, the petitioner has been removed from service and he has not worked thereafter. Therefore, the authority has rightly issued the endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that, after July 2000, he has worked as an Electrician in the first respondent – Town MunicipalCouncil. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 07.12.2019, vide Annexure-G. 4. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47