- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36351-DB WP No. 14148 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 14148 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHIKKALINGAMMA, W/O LATE D. DEVANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RETIRED GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEE, DISTRICT HEALTH LABORATORY, MANDYA-571 401. R/AT No.2416, 2ND CROSS, KALEGOUDA SCHOOL, MARIGOUDA LAYOUT, MANDYA -571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S. MARUTHI ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M. S. BUILDING, BANGLALORE-560001. REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36351-DB WP No. 14148 of 2021 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 3. THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, M C ROAD, MANDYA -571401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2019 PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.4277/2019, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.4277 of 2019 is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 4th October 2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36351-DB WP No. 14148 of 2021 2. According to the averments, the petitioner was appointed as a Group-D employee by Appointment Order dated 11.04.1984 on a consolidated salary of ₹390 with admissible allowances and was posted to Narayanpur Primary Health Unit, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District. The services of the petitioner were thereafter extended from time to time. The petitioner was relieved from duty on 03.02.1986. The petitioner approached the Labour Court, wherein respondent No.1 was directed to reinstate her, an order which was not complied with. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 15116 of 1997 seeking implementation of the Labour Court award, and this Court directed compliance, which also was not followed. Consequently, Contempt Petition in CCC No.29 of 1998 was filed, following which the petitioner was reinstated as a Group-D employee on a daily wage basis. 2.1 The petitioner subsequently filed a representation for regularisation of her service. As no decision was rendered on the representation, she preferred an application before the Tribunal in Application No.7932 of 2018. The Tribunal disposed of the application observing that the petitioner had already - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36351-DB WP No. 14148 of 2021 been regularised in the Group-D post. The petitioner retired and submitted an application for pensionary benefits. The representation was considered, and an endorsement was issued stating that the petitioner was a daily wage employee and that there was no provision for retirement benefits. This endorsement was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, held that the petitioner was not appointed to a permanent vacant post at any point of time and that the case before the Labour Court pertained to the termination of daily wage employment. Further, the Tribunal held that fixation of certain pay alone is not sufficient to classify the petitioner as a permanent employee entitled to statutory retirement benefits. 3. Sri S. Maruthi, learned counsel for Sri N. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submit that the petitioner is the regular holder of the post of Group-D, having been initially appointed on 11.04.1984 as a daily wage employee. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularised pursuant to Office Memorandum dated 21.03.1998. Learned counsel also submits that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36351-DB WP No. 14148 of 2021 service book, maintained as per KCSR, is complete and that the petitioner has been paid all increments due by the Government. In view of the above, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary and other retirement benefits. 4 Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the petitioner’s appointment was on a daily wage basis and that her services were never regularised. It is further submitted that, unless the petitioner establishes that her appointment was to a permanent post, she is not entitled to statutory retirement benefits. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. The petitioner claims to have been initially appointed as a daily wage employee and subsequently regularised as a permanent employee. It is submitted that her earlier termination was set aside by the Labour Court with a direction for reinstatement, pursuant to which she was reinstated. However, we note that the petitioner has failed to produce any material to demonstrate that her appointment was to a regular - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36351-DB WP No. 14148 of 2021 post, thereby entitling her to statutory retirement benefits. The payment of increments and maintenance of the Service Register alone cannot be considered as regular employment and direct payment of statutory retirement benefits. The Tribunal, having observed that the petitioner continued as a temporary daily wage employee and that the dispute before the Labour Court related to termination of daily wage employment, correctly held that the petitioner is not entitled to statutory retirement benefits. 6. On perusal of the impugned order and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that no justifiable grounds have been made out warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13