- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102145 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. J. P. HUNAGUND S/O. LATE PEERAPPA AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS, WORKING AS PLANTATION WATCHER, MUNDGOD UNIT, DHARWAD DIVISION, KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, MUNDAGOD TALUK, NORTH CANARA DISTRICT- 581349. 2. SRI. S. K. BHOSLE S/O. LATE KHANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS PLANTATION WATCHER, DHARWAD UNIT, DHARWAD DIVISION, KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, DHARWAD- 580008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.S. BHAGAWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI SATISH K. SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560001. 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VANAVIKAS, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE- 560003. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, FOREST COMPOUND, DHARWAD- 580008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, SRI S.H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICE CONDITIONS OF THE PETITIONERS WRIT OF CERTIORARI/DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN PASSING THE ORDER DATED 28/09/2005 BEARING NO. KFDC/A1/ DW/2005-06/1484 (ANNEXURE H) IS ONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND NULL AND VOID AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS BRINGING THEM UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE KARNATAKA DAILY WAGES WELFARE ACT, 2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2014 BEARING NO. KAAANINI/A1/SIBBANDI/CR-641/2014-15/227s8 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 (ANNEXURE N) IS ALSO ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REGULARISED IN THE RESPECTIVE CADRES AS PER THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 (ANNEXURE F AND G RESPECTIVELY) FROM THE DATE THEY HAVE COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE AS DAILY WAGER. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 8 TO EXTEND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS IN VIEW OF THE ORDER - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 DATED 17/12/2004 INCLUDING MONETORY BENEFITS IN VIEW OF THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE-M). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat, learned senior counsel Sri.Satish K. on behalf of Sri.Suresh S.Bhat appearing for the petitioners, learned HCGP Smt.Kirthilata R.Patil appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel Sri.S.H.Mittalkod appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The petitioners two in number, are said to be working as plantation watchers, in the Karnataka Forest Development Corporation, they are at the doors of this Court seeking several prayers. In effect, the prayer of the petitioners is that the claim for regularisation having been denied and the fact that they have been bought under the ambit of the Karnataka Daily Wages Welfare Act, 2012. The learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagwat appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Coordinate Benches of this Court have all considered this very aspect and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 directed regularisation of the employees, who were appointed as Plantation Watchers. This Court has held as follows: “3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as a Plantation Watcher in the Corporation on 1.11.1988. After his appointment, process of regularization was initiated by the Corporation seeking to regularize all those persons who were appointed as Plantation Watchers on daily wages. While sending the names for regularization to the Government, the Corporation appears to have inadvertently omitted the name of the petitioner to be sent as Plantation Watcher. This resulted in a communication being sent to the Corporation on 23.07.2013 wherein it was observed that the name of the petitioner was left out while sending recommendations of eligible persons to be considered for regularization who are in the cadre of Plantation Watchers. 4. The status of the petitioner is further fortified by several actions of the persons working in the cadre of Plantation Watcher. There were several communications of the transfer of the petitioner as Plantation Watcher from one place to another which are made part of the record in this writ petition. Since the respondent did not consider the request of the petitioner to change his designation as Plantation Watcher and consider his case for regularization as is considered in the case of several juniors of the petitioner who were appointed at a later point of time, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.35859/2015. This Court by an order dated 15.6.2016 allowing the writ petition in part, set aside the order and directed that the petitioner be granted benefits attached to the post of Plantation - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 Watcher until the directions of the Court were complied. 5. In consideration of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.35859/2015 dated 15.6.2016, the order impugned dated 13.10.2016 is passed removing the name of petitioner from the list of Daily Wagers and bringing the petitioner under the provisions of Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 and also ordering recovery of salary that was paid to the petitioner in the cadre of Plantation Watcher from June 2014. It is this order that is challenged in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages as Plantation Watcher and continued to work on daily wages. While recommending the names of persons who were working in the cadre of Plantation Watcher, the authority where the petitioner was working, omitted the name of the petitioner out of inadvertence, that is clarified by subsequent communication. Despite the same, petitioner was not accorded the benefit of regularization as was done in the case of several others who were juniors to the petitioner. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has been transferred from one division of plantation to the other coming under the Corporation on several occasions as a Plantation Watcher itself and he would contend that the petitioner was working in the Corporation for the last 33 years as Plantation Watcher and is not accorded the benefit of regularization despite him being entitled to that benefit. 7. On the other hand, Sri.M.V.Charati, learned counsel appearing the respondent-Corporation would vehemently argue and contend that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization as he was declared to be a permanent labourer throughout and had approached the Labour Court being a Member of the Union to get the badge of being a permanent labourer. Once having chosen to be a permanent labourer in the Corporation, now cannot turn around - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 and contend that he is appointed as a Plantation Watcher and he should be regularized as a Plantation Watcher. The Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was never appointed on daily wages. He was always a permanent labourer in the Corporation and would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merit and be dismissed. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The dates and events are not in dispute. On 1.11.1988 the petitioner was appointed, according to the petition, as a Plantation Watcher, but according to the respondents as a permanent labourer. The fact that he was appointed on daily wages is not in dispute. The process of regularization of all the persons appointed in the Corporation was undertaken by the Corporation which resulted in orders of regularization being issued in favour of all the employees of the Corporation who had completed 10 years of service by the date on which the orders of regularization could be passed along with the applicable pay scales. 10. Learned counsel would point out an instance of the name of one Sri.K.Annaiah Gowda who is at Sl.No.32 in the list who is appointed long after the petitioner as Plantation Watcher, being regularized in the said post. When the petitioner name was not found, a communication is sent to the competent authority - the head of the unit where the petitioner was working, that out of inadvertence the name of the petitioner was left out and requested that the name of the petitioner be included as he was working as Plantation Watcher. This was communicated on 23.07.2013. 11. Certain other communications which would vindicate the fact that the petitioner was a Plantation Watcher are the very orders passed by the Corporation. The Corporation on 17.05.2008 transferred the petitioner from one unit of plantation to the other describing him to be a daily wage - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 employee and the subject was transfer of a daily wage employee. In the course of an order, the petitioner is described as a Plantation Watcher. By a subsequent communication on 19.05.2008 the competent authority while recording that the petitioner has reported to duties as a Plantation Watcher also describes that the petitioner was a daily wage employee and a Plantation Watcher. 12. All these facts which were prior to the communication dated 23.7.2013, would clearly indicate that the petitioner was appointed and was functioning as a Plantation Watcher in the Corporation. 13. The aforesaid communication dated 23.7.2013 met its consideration at the hands of the Competent Authority who by a notification dated 9.7.2014 corrected the date of entry of service of the petitioner as Plantation Watcher and a Group ‘D’ employee, the notification also indicated that the petitioner had already put in 24 years and 9 months of service. All the aforesaid documents would lead to an unmistakable conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as a Plantation Watcher. His nomenclature was corrected only on 09.07.2014 but with effect from 1.11.1988, the date on which he was appointed on daily wages. 14. When the respondent-Corporation did not confer the benefit of him being appointed as a Plantation Watcher and passed orders contrary to its own finding, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.35859/2015. This Court by an order dated 15.6.2016 disposed the writ petition by observing as follows: “6. If the Corporation or its authorities have made any mistake in recommending the name of the petitioner for absorption in the post of plantation watcher, they should have first provided an opportunity to the petitioner notifying him of the said mistake and its intention to correct the mistake and thereafter, passed an order affording personal hearing to the petitioner. Such a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 recourse has not been adopted. In such circumstances, impugned order Annexure-A cannot be sustained. 7. Hence, this writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned order Annexure-A is set aside. It is made clear that petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits attached to the post of plantation watcher until such time action in accordance with law is taken by the respondents to correct the alleged mistake said to have been committed in recommending the case of the petitioner for absorption in the post of plantation watcher. Financial benefits withheld in respect of the petitioner shall be released immediately.” The respondents seeking to rectify the mistake as was directed by this Court, has passed the impugned order against the petitioner. The petitioner is brought under the provisions of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 and also directing recovery of salary that was paid in the cadre of Plantation Watcher with effect from June 2014, the date on which the notification was issued correcting the cadre of the petitioner was the date on which he was paid salary in the year 2014 attached to the post of Plantation Watcher. Above all, the earlier orders that conferred, described, referred the petitioner as Plantation Watcher is directed to be withdrawn with effect from 1.11.1988 by passing the impugned order on 13.10.2016. 15. The contention of the Corporation that the petitioner was never appointed on daily wages runs counter to the impugned order, which places the petitioner under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 and the argument that he was never described as a Plantation Watcher again runs counter to the very orders passed by the Corporation transferring the petitioner describing him as a Daily Wage Employee and a Plantation Watcher. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of regularization as is done in the case of one Sri.K.Annaiah Gowda which is only an - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 illustration to show that the service of the petitioner is to be regularized with effect from the date on which he completed 10 years of service. 16. The notification issued correcting the cadre of the petitioner as plantation Watcher in the year 2014 describes the petitioner to have been appointed on 1.11.1988. Therefore, taking the date of entry into service as 1.11.1988 the petitioner would be entitled to regularization in the cadre of Plantation Watcher even in terms of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi(3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order bearing No.Ka.Aaa.Sum. 36 /2016-17 dated 13.10.206 is quashed. (iii) The order directing recovery is also quashed. (iv) The Corporation is directed to consider regularization of the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Plantation Watcher from the date on which his cadre supra is regularized, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.” 3. The said order was carried in Appeal and the Division Bench dismisses the appeal in W.A.No.611/2021 by an order date 11.10.2022, observing as follows: “6. The material on record would go to show that prior to issuing of the communication dated 23.07.2013, wherein it was observed that the name of respondent no.2 was inadvertently left out in the list of employees whose names were - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 recommended for regularization, the appellant- Corporation in several communications have referred to respondent no.2 as Plantation Watcher. The Corporation on 17.05.2008 had transferred respondent no.2 from one unit of its to another, referring him to a daily wage employee and in the course of the said order, respondent no.2 is also described as Plantation Watcher. In the communication dated 19.05.2008, the competent authority has referred to respondent no.2 as Plantation Watcher and a daily wage employee. Subsequently, on 09.07.2014, the competent authority has issued a communication correcting the date of entry of the service of respondent no.2 as Plantation Watcher and the notification also indicated that respondent no.2 had already put in 24 years 9 months of service. In effect, respondent no.2 is considered as a Plantation Watcher right from the date of his appointment i.e., 01.11.1988. 7. By issuing the order dated 13.10.2016, the earlier orders which described/referred respondent no.2 as Plantation Watcher was directed to be withdrawn with effect from 01.11.1988. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration several communications and orders which referred/described respondent no.2 as a daily wage employee and plantation watcher, has quashed the order dated 13.10.2016 and has directed the appellantCorporation to consider the regularization of the service of respondent no.2 in the cadre of plantation watcher from the date on which his cadre is regularized. The learned Single Judge has further quashed the order directing recovery of excess salary paid to respondent no.2. We find no illegality or irregularity in the said order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The contention of the appellant that respondent no.2 was not appointed as a daily wage employee, but he was appointed as a general worker deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the said submission is contrary to the order dated 13.10.2016 under which respondent no.2 was brought under the provisions of Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012. Under the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.” This was tossed by the KFDC before the Apex Court in SLP No.8443/2023 only to be dismissed, in terms of the order dated 11.09.2023. 4. In terms of the afore-quoted orders, the petitioners in the case at hand become entitled to the same relief that was granted to those petitioners on the score that the petitioners are similarly situated like that of the petitioners, in whose favour the afore-quoted orders was passed. 5. Learned HCGP on the other hand seeks to distinguish the order passed in the case of K.Dinesh Kumar supra, on the score that the said employee was appointed on permanent basis as a plantation watcher and therefore the petitioners cannot claim parity with a permanent labour. The submission is noted only to be rejected, if the petitioner therein was appointed as a permanent labour, there was no question of direction to regularise his services. Therefore, the petitioners are - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2543 WP No. 102145 of 2024 similarly situated and are entitled to the same relief granted by this Court in the case of K.Dinesh Kumar. The petition thus deserves to succeed by the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 28.09.2005 vide Annexure-H and the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 vide Annexure-N passed by the respondent No.2 are hereby quashed. iii. Mandamus issues to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners as is considered in the case of K.Dinesh Kumar supra strictly in consonance with law, within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17