- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25710-DB WP No. 12964 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 12964 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. ROHINI M W/O K. GANGADHAR D/O M. VASUDEVA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, EX. TYPIST, OFFICE OF THE DAKSHINA KANNADA ZILLA PANCHAYATH MANGALORE R/O MATADAKANI 5TH CROSS NATIONAL BOLOOR MANGLAORE -575006 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURURAJ R., ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU- 575001. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25710-DB WP No. 12964 of 2021 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DAKSHINA KANNADA ZILLA PANCHAYAT MANGALURU- 575001 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S R KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI A.K. VASANTH, ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3677/2016 BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-C; DIRECTION MODIFYING THE COMMUNICATION/ORDERS DATED 04.12.2015 AND 22.01.2016 ISSUED BY R2 AND R3 AS PER ANNEXURE-A20 AND ANNEXURE-A21 TO THE APPLICATION NO.3677/2016 RESPECTIVELY AND DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND VOID AND 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2019 in Application No.3677/2016 on the file of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore is before this Court in this writ petition, against rejection of petitioner’s request to modify the order dated 04.12.2015 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25710-DB WP No. 12964 of 2021 (Annexure-A20) and order dated 22.01.2016 (Annexure-A21), wherein, the petitioner is extended benefit of Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (for short “2012 Act”). 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Gururaj R., for petitioner and Sri.S.R.Khamroz Khan, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Sri.A.K.Vasanth, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on 20.11.1986 as Typist at the Taluk Office, Bangalore on daily wage basis, against a vacant sanctioned post. Further, learned counsel would state that she had served for more than 30 years as daily wager. In terms of Annexure-A12 dated 21.06.2006, case of the petitioner along with others was recommended for regularization, as the petitioner had served for more than 10 years. Learned counsel would submit that instead of regularizing the services of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25710-DB WP No. 12964 of 2021 petitioner, the respondent-State extended the benefit under 2012 Act. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was before the Tribunal seeking to modify the impugned order dated 04.12.2015 (Annexure-A20) as well as the order dated 22.01.2016 (Annexure-A21) for regularization of services of the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner had served for nearly 30 years against a sanctioned vacant post, the petitioner would be entitled for regularization. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner would be entitled for benefit of paragraph 53 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v/s UMADEVI AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned AGA would submit that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016 and on her retirement, the benefit to which the petitioner was entitled under 2012 Act was granted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25710-DB WP No. 12964 of 2021 The petitioner was also paid gratuity of Rs.2,12,412/-. Thus, he submits that having accepted the benefit under 2012 Act, the petitioner would not be entitled for any other relief. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI case. As such, the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization. 5. Sri.A.K.Vasanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would also support the submission of the learned AGA and further submits that the petitioner was continued in service on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21809/1990. Moreover, the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI case (supra). Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error or irregularity in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25710-DB WP No. 12964 of 2021 the order passed by the Tribunal and the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was extended the benefit of 2012 Act under O.M. dated 04.12.2015 (Annexure-A20) of the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru and the petitioner was extended the benefits available under the Act under separate order dated 22.01.2016 (Annexure-A21). Moreover, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016. On her retirement, the petitioner was paid gratuity of Rs.2,21,412/- which the petitioner had accepted. Under 2012 Act, the petitioner was entitled for benefits of leave and other terminal benefits and the petitioner would be entitled for pay in the minimum time scale. The Tribunal, while dismissing the application of the petitioner has referred to W.P.No.21809/1990 and observed that continuation of the petitioner was on the strength of the interim order passed in the said writ petition. No contrary materials are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25710-DB WP No. 12964 of 2021 produced to disagree with the said observation. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40