- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158 WP No. 106973 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.106973 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DEVAPPA S/O. BASAPPA, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE, R/O: BAHADURBANDI – 583 238, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAPURA – 184 120. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR I RRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, KALBURGI CIRCLE, KALBURGI – 585 211. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158 WP No. 106973 of 2024 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL – 58 3231, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL – 583 231, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS DATED 02/08/2024 BEARING NO. SAM. SAKAANIE/ SANI AND AMAA/ UV/ KO/ DIXE/2024-25/559 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT/THE AEE, KOPPAL PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER AS ON THE DATE ELIGIBLE AND TO GIVE ALL THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158 WP No. 106973 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned endorsements dated 02/08/2024 bearing No. Sam. SAKAANIE/ SANI & AMAA/UV/KO/DIXE/2024-25/559 issued by the 5th Respondent/The AEE, Koppal produced at Annexure-G. b) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the Respondents to regularize the service of petitioner as on the date eligible and to give all the pensionary benefits in terms of the representation vide Annexure-E. c) Such other writ or orders or direction may deem fit under the case including an order for costs be issued in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar Balagerimath appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri.Sharad V.Magadum representing the respondent- State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in cases of identical persons, this Court in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158 WP No. 106973 of 2024 W.P.No.106610/2024 disposed on 20.01.2025 has passed the following order: “3. The petitioner is appointed on daily wages in the respondent / Department of Minor Irrigation on 01.10.1985, the list is drawn of persons who had completed 10 years of service and in the list the petitioner figures at Sl. No.321. It transpires that, similarly placed persons knocked at the doors of the Court seeking regularization, which reach the Apex Court in the judgment of MALATHI DAS (RETIRED) NOW P.B. MAHISHY AND OTHERS VS. SURESH AND OTHERS1. The Apex Court directs regularisation of 74 persons who are before the Apex Court pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court it transpires that in the very same Department certain employees who were juniors to the petitioners have been regularised. The petitioner’s case is not considered and an endorsement is issued that the petitioner is not entitled for such regularization. 4. The statement of objections are filed in the case at hand in which the contention of the state inter alia is as follows: “4. It is respectfully submitted that, the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3338/2014 is applicable only to the Petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble Court and there is no specific order in the said order to regularize the service 1 (2014) 13 SCC 249 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158 WP No. 106973 of 2024 of similarly placed persons. Hence the order relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that Annexure-C was passed in respect of the petitioners who have approached the court.” 5. It is the case of the State again inter alia that there is no specific order passed by any Court to regularise the services of the petitioner or any similarly situated persons as obtaining in Civil Appeal quoted supra. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner is an appointee like the others, who had knocked at the doors of the Apex Court has also like others who are regularised pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court. 6. The petitioner appears to have been picked and chosen for a differential treatment which smacks arbitrariness on the part of the State as similarly placed persons have to be accorded similar belief not that everyone should not knocked at the doors of this Court as the State can bear the brunt of litigation and not an employee for driving every employee to this Court seeking the very same relief. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the State to consider the case of the petitioner In strict consonance with what the Court has held in MALATHI DAS (supra) and what the State itself has done in terms of the Government Order dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure-C) which was pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court. 7. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed. The endorsement dated 02.08.2024 stands - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3158 WP No. 106973 of 2024 quashed. Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order within an outer limit of two months, if not earlier. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from such consideration. Ordered accordingly.” 4. The learned AGA would submit that the issue, no doubt, is covered by the said order, but the petitioner has not challenged the same from 2015 to 2024. After 9 years of the cause of action arising, the petitioner is before this Court. The same submission was made in the aforesaid petition. Moreover, the claim has been turned down by the State only in 2024. The blame cannot be laid to the doors of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is disposed on the same terms that led to disposal of Writ Petition No.106610/2024. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46