- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SF-4, SF-5, STERLING TOWER SECOND FLOOR (GARMET COMPLEX) KSSIDC, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BENGALURU-560 010 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. M.V. ASHWINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VEDA MURTHY M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. H.R. SRINIVASA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS DIVISIONAL MANAGER GANDASI HAND POST-573 164 ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 R/AT. HONAKUMARANAHALLI LALANAKER POST, GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 164 3. C. L. LOKESH S/O LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS WORKING AS ACCOUNTANT KSCDC, HEAD OFFICE BENGALURU-560 003 R/AT. CHIKKENAHALLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160 4. H.M. THOTAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS ADMIN ASSISTANT KSCDC, HEAD OFFICE BENGALURU-560 003 R/AT. BELUVALLI, KOLAGUNDA POST JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103 5. DASHARATHA K.B. S/O BASAPPA K.R. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS SHOWROOM MANAGER KSCDC, BENGALURU-560 003 R/AT. NANJANAYAKAN KOPPAL KURUVANKA POST, BANAVARA HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103 6. K.S. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O SHIVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS WORKING AS DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSCDC, BANAVAR, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 112 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 R/AT. M.D. COLONY, MARATAGERE (POST) ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103 7. MAHALINGE GOWDA K.N. S/O NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSCDC, NAVILE THIMMAPURA CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRIT R/AT. KUDUKUNDI CHAGACHAGERE POST BELUVALLI, KOLAGUNDA POST GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 164 8. RAMADAS BUDDUNVANTA GAONKAR S/O BUDDIVANTHA GAONKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSCDC, SHETTIGERE KENI ANKOLA-581 314 R/AT. KASABA KENI, ANKOLA UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 314 9. PRASANNA NAIK C.K. S/O KRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSCDC, BEGURU, GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT R/AT. CHIKKANGALA POST KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548 10. NAGEGOWDA H.M. S/O MALALI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RETIRED TECHNICAL ASSISTANT GRADE-01, KSCDC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 GANDASI HAND POST-573 164 ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT R/AT. HIRISAMUDRA YARAGANALU POST-573 164 GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103 11. BASAVA KUMARA S/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RETIRED AS DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSCDC, BANAVARA ARASIKERE TALUK R/AT. HIRIYUR POST ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103 12. B.S. RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED AS DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSCDC, GUBBI TALUK R/AT. BELUVALLI, KOLAGUNDA POST JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 125 13. B.H. ANANTHA RAJU S/O HANUMAIAH TECHNICAL ASSISTANT GRADE-01, CENTRAL GODOWN KANCHAGHATTA ROAD TIPATURU-572 201 SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRS., SUJATHA E. W/O LATE B.H. ANANTHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 14. DARSHAN B.A. S/O LATE B.H. ANANTHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 15. POOJA B.A. D/O LATE B.H. ANANTHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.13 TO 15 ARE R/AT. ANATHA KRUPA KANCHAGATTA NEW EXTENSION HIGHTENSION POLE ROAD, TIPATURU TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 291 16. MALLAPPA M. S/O MAHESHWARAPPA DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSCDC, BANAVARA ARASIKERE TALUK KANAKATTE-573 144 ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRS SUJATHA T.R. W/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 17. INDU S.M. D/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 18. S.M. CHANDANA D/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.16 TO 18 ARE R/AT. SINGATAGERE, KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 138 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R18 & C/R15) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR THE ENTIRE FILE TO EXAMINE THE LEGALITY, VALIDITY AND PROPRIETY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.15164/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS IT IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST EQUITY AND JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Writ Appeal is filed to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15164/2023. 2. We have heard Smt. M.V.Ashwini, learned counsel for Shri. Vedamurthy M.V, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri. Ranganatha S Jois, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 18. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant - Corporation has no independent Cadre and Recruitment Rules ('C&R Rules' for short) or sanctioned posts. The respondents were appointed only on honorarium basis depending on the work load and therefore the question of granting pay scales does not arise. The pay scales extended to the respondents has no support of statutory rules. The Board of the Corporation erred in mechanically deciding to regularize the employees engaged on honorarium basis without considering the essential factors such as qualification, age, roster, experience and merely implemented the order passed by this Court in a routine manner. Taking advantage of this, the respondents are pressurizing the Corporation to regularize their services and grant wages in the absence of pay scales or C&R Rules from the Government. In the absence of legal provisions to support such claims, the order amounts to a bald - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 direction passed without due consideration of facts, law, settled practice and procedure. 4. The appellant Corporation has already submitted the draft C&R Rules to the Government for approval and certain clarifications have been sought. The Corporation is actively pursuing the matter and upon approval, the cadre strength will be sanctioned and recruitment will be undertaken by following due process of law. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that all the relevant aspects of the matter have been urged before the learned Single Judge and it was considering the facts as disclosed by the pleadings and the documents produced by the respondents that the order had been passed. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no difference between the persons whose services have been regularised and the petitioners and no justifiable reason - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 whatsoever is stated even in this appeal for denying the benefit already granted to identically situated employees. It is submitted that the respondents cannot pick and choose and denied benefits to similarly situated persons. 6. We have considered the contentions advanced. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioners in the writ petition had filed an earlier writ petition as W.P.No.25610/2009 seeking consideration of a claim for regularization and consequential benefits and the said writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 26.02.2010. The matter was taken in appeals as W.A.No.1486/2010 and W.As.No.1532-50/2010. By judgment dated 31.12.2010, the order of the learned Single Judge was modified by the Division Bench and the directions were issued to the Corporation to regularize only such employees whose continuation was considered inevitable and in the interest of the Corporation. An order was passed on 02.02.2011 regularizing the services of 17 employees including the writ petitioners as Technical Assistant Grade-I. However, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 thereafter the Corporation proceeded to enhance the pay in respect of four such employees. The petitioners filed W.P.No.26640/2017 seeking a direction to grant the same pay scale which was granted to four regularized employees to them as well. The four employees to whom the enhanced pay had been granted but was later withdrawn were also before this Court filing W.P.No.1570/2019. Both matters were heard together. The withdrawal of the enhanced pay was set aside. The petitioners were enabled to make a representation, which was directed to be considered in accordance with law. It is thereafter that the endorsement dated 05.04.2023 challenged in the present writ petition came to be quashed. 7. The same was again challenged. The learned Single Judge found that there is no provision under the Rules enabling the Corporation to pay different pay scales to persons in the same Grade. The decisions taken by the Board were also specifically referred to, it was found that since the Corporation has consciously and deliberately - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35387-DB WA No. 55 of 2024 granted a particular set of benefits to four employees from July, 2014, it would not be possible to withdraw the benefits on the grounds as stated. Further, it was found that the petitioners, who are admittedly appointed simultaneously in the same cadre, would also be entitled to the same scales of pay from July 2014. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side and having given our anxious consideration to the materials on record, we find no patent error in the reasoning or the findings of the learned Single Judge. We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment is not liable to be interfered in this intra-Court appeal. The appeal therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CP; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33