- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34027-DB WP No. 1453 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST 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. 1453 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE SRI DODDA YELLAPPA (FOREST GUARD) OFFICE OF RFO KOLAR KOLAR TLAUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101 PRESENT ADDRESS: R/AT NO.163, ANEPURA VILLAGE NIDARAMANGALA POST MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT- 563137. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34027-DB WP No. 1453 of 2024 ’ARANYA BHAVANA’ 18TH CROSS, MALLESHARAM BENGALURU-560 003. 3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS KOLAR CIRCLE KOLAR- 563101. 4. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT- 563101. 5. RANGE FOREST OFFICER KOLAR RANGE KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2023 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.291/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-AA TO THIS WRIT PETITION AS THE SAME IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34027-DB WP No. 1453 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard learned counsel Sri.C.Shankar Reddy for petitioner and perused the entire writ petition papers. 2. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the order dated 24.07.2023 in Application No.291/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for regularization. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.C.Shankar Reddy would submit that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 01.09.1994 in the fifth respondent- Office. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had completed more than ten years of service as on the date of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS V/S UMADEVI AND OTHERS1. As the 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34027-DB WP No. 1453 of 2024 petitioner would fulfill all the criteria stated in UMADEVI (supra), the petitioner would be entitled for regularization. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal failed to grant the relief for regularization only by recording that learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer for grant of emoluments as entitled to under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Rules’). Learned counsel would submit that the prayer of the petitioner before the Tribunal was for regularization which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the specific statement recorded by the Tribunal at paragraph 7 of the order, which reads as follows: “7. At the hearing, the learned counselfor the applicant has stated that all he is seeking in this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34027-DB WP No. 1453 of 2024 application is for a direction for grant of emoluments as he is entitled to under the 2013 Rules. The learned government pleader has with reference to the reply statement contended that the applicant is getting all the emoluments to which he is entitled as under the 2013 Rules and that there are no pleadings in the application too as to the deficiencies in the grant of emoluments under the 2013 Rules.” 5. A reading of the above paragraph of the order of the Tribunal, it is seen that the applicant has sought only a direction for grant of emoluments as is entitled to under 2013 Rules. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader before the Tribunal placing reliance on the reply statement stating that the emoluments as entitled to under 2013 Rules is being paid to the petitioner, recording the said statement, application is disposed of. 6. When the petitioner’s prayer itself was for a direction to pay emoluments in terms of 2013 Rules which is being paid to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot turn - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34027-DB WP No. 1453 of 2024 around and contend otherwise before this Court. No ground in the writ petition in respect of paragraph (7) is made out or taken. 7. In the above circumstances, when the petitioner himself restricted his prayer before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26