- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5630-DB WA No. 100446 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100446 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE HUBBALLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, KNOWN AS HESCOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, P.B. ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT, HESCOM, SIRSI, TALUK. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V), OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT, HESCOM, HONNAVAR, TALUK. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581342. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V), O AND M SUB-DIVISION OFFICE, HESCOM, BHATKAL, TALUK. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581320. 5. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, KNOWN AS KPTCL, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, (ADMIN AND HR), KPTCL, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5630-DB WA No. 100446 of 2022 CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE.) AND: MANJUNATH S/O. MASTAPPA NAIK, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC. DAILY WAGER, R/O. KANCHINAGUNDI MANE, V.T. ROAD, ASARKERI, TALUK. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTARA KANANDA-581320. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GIRISH YADAWAD AND SRI D.J.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.102377/2021 (S) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the respondents before the learned single Judge, calling in question the order dated 05.04.2022, passed in W.P.No.102377/2021 (S). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5630-DB WA No. 100446 of 2022 2. By the said order the learned single Judge ordered that the writ petitioner would be entitled to a sum of ₹16,370/- as was paid to similarly placed employees. 3. The relevant facts are that, the writ petitioner claiming to have been appointed to the post of a Sanitary Worker, at the Bhatkal Sub-division of appellant No.1 (HESCOM) and having given a representation on 17.11.2020, requesting for monthly salary of ₹16,370/-, was before this Court seeking consideration of the said representation. This Court, vide order dated 08.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.100162/2021 directed consideration of the said representation dated 17.11.2020 within a period of three months. An endorsement dated 11.05.2021 was issued rejecting the request made by the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved, W.P.No.102377/2021 was filed. The learned single Judge, vide order dated 05.04.2022, allowed the said writ petition and held that the writ petitioner would be entitled to a sum of ₹16,370/-. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5630-DB WA No. 100446 of 2022 4. Learned counsel Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, appearing for the appellants contends that the petitioner was working only for one hour a day for the purpose of cleaning the office and washroom and he was paid a sum of ₹1,000/- p.m. from the miscellaneous expenses of the office and that he was not a fulltime employee. It is further contended that after finishing the cleaning work, he would go to other places for working. It is further contended that the said sum of money paid to the petitioner was not a salary. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Girish Yadawad, appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner contends that the learned single Judge considering the contention put forth by the respondents held that the petitioner having admittedly worked as a Sanitary Worker was entitled to a salary of ₹16,370/-. 6. The fact that the writ petitioner was working as a Sanitary Worker as alleged in the writ petition is not disputed. The only contention of the appellants/ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5630-DB WA No. 100446 of 2022 respondents is that he was working only for one hour and not employed for the whole day. However, no material has been placed on record by the respondents to demonstrate that the writ petitioner was working only for one hour. It is the assertion of the writ petitioner that he has been discharging the work of cleaning the office premises and toilets for 16 long years. 7. It is relevant to note that the 5th appellant (KPTCL) vide order dated 02.05.2019, which is passed pursuant to the communication issued by the National Commission for Safai Karmacharies, Ministry of Social Justice and Environment has ordered that a sum of ₹16,370/- would be payable to the Sanitary Workers from 01.04.2019. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has also filed a memo placing on record a communication, whereunder it is stated that the writ petitioner is employed in another organization from 05.07.2021. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5630-DB WA No. 100446 of 2022 9. Although it is assertion of the writ petitioner that he was prevented from working at the office of the appellant No.1 (HESCOM) in view of the pendency of writ petition and this appeal, there is no material placed on record by either of the parties with regard to the same. 10. Suffice to state that the appellants have placed on record a certificate dated 13.09.2023 which indicates that the writ petitioner was working at another entity from 05.07.2021 to 31.07.2023. 11. Having regard to the aforementioned factual matrix, since the writ petitioner was admittedly working as a Sanitary Worker with the HESCOM, it is just and proper that the present appeal be disposed of by directing the appellants No.3 and 4 (respondents No.3 and 4 in the writ petition) to pay a sum of ₹16,370/- per month for the period from 01.04.2019 to 04.07.2021 to the respondent/writ petitioner. The said payment shall be made within four weeks from today. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5630-DB WA No. 100446 of 2022 12. To the above extent, the impugned order dated 05.04.2022, passed in W.P.No.102377/2021 stands modified. The Writ Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 13. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2