IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.986 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. B. LAKSHMANA S/O SHEENAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. BOLLUR HOUSE ALETTY VILLAGE AND POST SULLIYA TALUK D.K.-574 239 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VANAVIKAR 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 2 . THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED KULASHEKARA MANGALURU-575 004 - 2 3 . THE DEPUTY MANAGER (FACTORIES CLF) MADINADKA ALETTY VILLAGE AND POST SULLYA TALUK D.K. -574 239 4 . THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIORNMENT AND BIOLOGY (FOREST-A) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.5566/2021 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Writ Appeal is filed challenging by the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5566/2021 (S-RES). 2. We have heard Shri. Narayana Bhat. M, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.4. 3. The Writ Petition had been filed challenging Annexure 'A' - letter dated 23/27.01.2020 issued by respondent No.4 and the endorsement at Annexure 'B' Dated 31.01.2020 by respondent No.1. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had been continuing in service from 01.08.1990, as watchman and that he had attained the age of superannuation while working against the said post. It is submitted that in view of the fact that he had completed - 4 10 years of service in the year 2000. He was entitled to regularization even in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is submitted that the refusal to grant regularization to the appellant when the benefit had been granted to other similarly situated persons was completely untenable. 5. Further, the learned counsel also places reliance on the later judgments of this Court. However, we find that no similarly situated employee had been granted the benefit of regularization under the respondent - Corporation after 23.06.1998. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate submit that the Corporation had regularized the services of employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 23.06.1998 as a one time measure. It is submitted that the appellant at the relevant time had not completed 10 years of service and as such was not entitled - 5 for regularization. It is submitted that thereafter, an order was passed on 19.09.2014 granting the benefit of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 ('2012 Act' for short) to the writ petitioner. The said order was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.18752/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 19.09.2018, holding that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits under the 2012 Act. Thereafter W.A.No.1257/2019 was filed which was also considered and disposed of by order dated 08.07.2019. In the said order, while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, a further direction was issued to the Government to consider the claim of the appellant for regularization. 7. The Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the request for regularization. It was stated that an order dated 23.04.1993 in W.P.No.12610/1993 was the reason for continuing daily wage employees appointed after 01.07.1984 and that as such, the petitioner was not a person who had continued in service for 10 years without any intervention of the Court. It - 6 was further found that the order of regularization granted in respect of other daily wage employees was specifically confined to those employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 23.06.1998. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the appellant had been appointed in the year 1990 and had continued in service. The entire benefits of the 2012 Act had been granted to the appellant and he had also retired from service. The Government have taken a specific contention that it was only on account of interim orders passed in the writ petitions filed by the employees of the respondent - Corporation that the services of the daily wagers had been extended. 9. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner did not have a right to insist on regularization of his services in the absence of any such regularization having been granted to any similarly situated employee after 23.06.1998, cannot be interfered with by this Court in this - 7 intra-Court appeal. The intra-Court appeal therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*