- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14866 WP No. 102804 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102804 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: H. G. SHIDDANNAVAR, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. LIBRARIAN, C M NADAGOUDA, INDEPENDENT, PU cOLLEGE, BAGALKOT – 587 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN RADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-II, DEPT. OF EDUCATION, M. S. BUILDING,BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, THE DEPT. OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE DEPT. OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, BAGALKOT – 587 103. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, SRI. SIDDESHWAR VIDYAVARDHAK SANGH, GADDANAKERI, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT 587 103. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, SHRI. P. M. NADAGOUDA ARTS AND COMMERCE PU COLLEGE,BAGALKOT587 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.07 11:53:42 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14866 WP No. 102804 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION/ LEGAL NOTICE DATED 22.04.2021 MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR PAY THE ARREARS OF SALARY SINCE APPOINTMENT DATE AND ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION BENEFITS AND PROVIDE ACCORDING TO LAW VIDE ANNEXURE-H DATED 22.04.2021 AND ETC., THIS WRIT 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. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: A. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1, to consider the representation/ legal notice dated 22.04.2021 made by the petitioner for pay the arrears of salary since appointment date and eligible for pension benefits and provide according to law vide Annexure-H dated 22.04.2021. B. Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble court deem think fit under facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14866 WP No. 102804 of 2023 3. The petitioner joins the services of the 4th respondent-aided Institution as a librarian, works about 30 years, is regularised as a librarian as a special case. The petitioner then submits a representation seeking salary of a regular employee from 1990 till the date he was regularised in the year 2020. The order which regularises him, takes away certain benefits. Notwithstanding the same, a representation comes to be submitted by the petitioner. Though the petitioner may not be entitled to the salary of a regular employee, as he was absorbed or regularised in the service of a librarian only as a special case imposing certain conditions, the petitioner cannot prima facie become entitled to certain terminal benefits of the service that he has rendered for 30 years as an employee, whose services have been taken for 30 long years cannot be left in the lurch without any terminal benefits that he would become entitled to. 4. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation so submitted to that effect by the respondent-State within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14866 WP No. 102804 of 2023 5. The learned HCGP would submit that the petitioner has represented to the respondent that he would want to withdraw the petition and not claim arrears of salary or otherwise. 6. The said undertaking so submitted by the petitioner is on the face of it opposed to public policy, as statutory benefits of an employee cannot be permitted to be withdrawn on a representation submitted by him, be it on coercion or otherwise. If the undertaking submitted before the authority that he would withdraw the petition and not claim any terminal benefits, it would, as observed hereinabove, be an unconscionable undertaking. In that light, the representation of the petitioner should merit consideration on its merit as observed hereinabove. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE kmv CT-ASC