- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 111729 OF 2017 (S-REG) BETWEEN: SMT. HANAMAVVA W/O. BASAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: DELAY WAGERS EMPLOYEE(COOK), R/O: TALAKAL,TQ: YALABURGA, DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPTD BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND OTHER BACKWARD CLASS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 4. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE OF OTHER BACKWARD CLASS, BENGALURU. 5. THE DIRECTOR WELFARE OF OTHER BACKWARD CLASS, BENGALURU. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL. VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.11 16:18:16 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL. 8. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL. 9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELFARE OF THER BACKWARD CLASS KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL. 10. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER (EARLIER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER) TALUKA PANCHAYAT, YALABURGA, DIST: KOPPAL. 11. THE TALUKA OFFICER WELFARE OF OTHER BACKWARD CLASS AND MINORITY, YALABURGA, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R7, R9 AND R11; R8 AND R10 – SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO 11 TO REGULARIZED THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER TO RESPECTIVE POST OR ANY OTHER POST WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF THEIR APPOINTMENT AND PAY THEM EQUAL SALARY AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING FROM THE ORDER OF REGULARIZATION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer.: A. A Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 to 11 to regularized the service of the petitioner to respective post or any other post with effect from the date of their appointment and pay them equal salary and all other consequential benefits flowing from the order of regularization. B. A Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to 5 to consider the proposal bearing Nos. ©.¹.JA.PÉÆ.¹§âA¢:¹Dgï:25:2000-01/1235 dated 10/12/2008, CgÉ ¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:/r©¹JAPÉÆ/¹§âA¢/«¤- 4/¹Dgï-17/2013-14/881 Nos. dated 20/11/2014 and 2//2.2/22-04/-69/2016-17 dated 22/02/2017 sent by the respondent No. 9 vide Annexure-V, W and X respectively. in sofar as petitioner is concerned. C. Issue any other writ or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner, a daily wage employee now retired on attaining the age of superannuation, is at the doors of this Court seeking regularisation of her services that she has rendered from 1982 till the date of retirement in the year 2019 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7. 4. The petitioner is appointed as a cook in the BCM Hostels at Yalaburga taluk with effect from 26.06.1982. The petitioner, owing to certain allegations, had been terminated from service in the year 1997. The said termination was called in question before the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the reference and set aside the order of termination directing reinstatement with 25% back wages. The petitioner was taken back to duties on 12.01.2001. After taking back to duties, the petitioner then registers her claim for regularisation of her services. The same is not considered. Therefore, is before this Court seeking a direction to consider her case for regularisation owing to the fact that the petitioner has rendered service for over 36 years with the respondent BCM hostel as a cook and has retired without regularisation. 5. The learned counsel Sri. Hemantkumar L. Havaragi appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post and continued in the said post for over 36 years and in the light of the said continuance, the petitioner becomes entitled to be considered for regularisation. The non-regularisation of the petitioner would be contrary to the plethora of judgments rendered by this Court and by the Apex Court from time to time. 6. The learned HCGP on the other hand would submit that the petitioner's services stood terminated in the year 1997 and up to 2001 she has not worked and therefore the said service should be taken note of only from 2001 and if it is taken note of from 2001 she had not completed 10 years of service, as on the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others1, which was rendered on 10.04.2006. The learned HCGP would thus seek dismissal of the petition. 7. The learned HGP would further emphasize on the fact that there was no appointment letter issued to the petitioner, but admits that she has continued without an appointment letter for 36 years in service. 1 AIR 2006 SC 1806 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the records. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute but the link in the chain of events qua the dates requires certain reiteration. The petitioner admittedly appointed as a Cook in the BCM Hostel at Yalaburga Taluk and since then served as a cook till the date she was terminated from service in the year 1997. The matter was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal and the award was passed in Reference No.120 of 1998 directing reinstatement with 25% back wages and continuity of service the award reads as follows: “I find that the 1st party is not entitled to any back wages from the date of termination till the earliest date i.e. 10.3.97. Therefore, the 1st party is not entitled to back wages till 10.8.97. Thus 2nd party is an industry maintained on public funds. Keeping this aspects in view and also the delay in the progress of the case I find that if the back was is to be restricted to 25% from 10.3.97 till the date of actual reinstatement in view of the observation of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. 36507/99629 it would meet the ends of justice. Continuity of service be counted for all purposes. As such, issues are answered as stated supra. Accordingly I proceed to make the following Award. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 Award Reference sent by the Govt. of Karnataka is answered to the effect that the termination is not proper and correct. The 2nd party is directed to reinstate the 1st party to the work within six week from the date of publication of award comes into force and shall pay 25% back wage from 10.3.97 till the actual date of reinstatement. 1st party is not entitled to any backwage earlier to 10.3.97 and also other 75% of backwage. Continuity of service be counted for all purposes. No costs. Let the copy of award be sent to Govt U/s 17 of I.D. Act.” 10. After the award, the State reinstates the petitioner as a cook and the petitioner then continues as a cook for 17 years thereafter and retires on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2019. 11. The submission of the learned HCGP that there was no appointment order and a direction should not be issued to regularise the service of the petitioner is noted only to be rejected, as without the appointment order, the petitioner continues in service upto the date of termination in the year 1997. The termination is questioned. Award is passed. Award is accepted and the petitioner is reinstated and continues in service again up to 2019. All without an appointment order. Therefore, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 the submission that since there is no letter of appointment issued in the year 1982, the petitioner should be left in the lurch is sans countenance. The jurisprudence is replete with the judgments of the Apex Court on the issue in the aftermath of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI , all of which bear consideration at the hands of this Court in W.P. No.105364 of 2025, disposed on 15th October 2025 and W.P. No.100521 of 2025, disposed on 17th November 2025. In the light of the said judgments which consider the entire spectrum of the law as it has flown from the hands of the Apex Court till the judgment in the case of DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER2, wherein it is held as follows: “8. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17232 WP No. 111729 of 2017 12. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed with a direction to the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date on which she completed 10 years of service from the date of her initial appointment which would be in the year 1982. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of salary on the regular pay scale but the said period shall be taken note of for the purpose of all terminal benefits and the said terminal benefits shall be worked out and disbursed to the petitioner all within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Kmv upto para 8 VNP CT: ANB