- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 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.106282 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: RAMAMURTI S/O. GANAPATHI HEGDE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: LIBRARY SUPERVISOR, G.P LIBRARY, UNCHALLI, R/O: HALSINAKOPPA, UNCHALLI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNEMENT BY DESIGNATION, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTITUTION AND PRIMARY EDUCATION, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 BENGALURU – 560 001. 5. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC LIBRARY, CUBBON PARK, BENGALURU – 560 001. 6. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DISTRICT CENTRAL LIBRARY, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA – 581 301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. GRA A PA/83/ GRA PAM NYA/ 2021 DATED 06.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION. ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF 6 MONTHS MINIMUM WAGES DIFFERENCE AMOUNT WHICH HAD BEEN PAID TO OTHER LIBRARY SUPERVISORS OF KALABURGI DISTRICT. ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 20,000/- TO THE PETITIONER AS COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 06.08.2024, by which, the claim of the petitioners for grant of minimum wages has been turned down notwithstanding the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench. The petitioners have also sought a consequential mandamus directing, the respondents to make the payment of difference of six months of minimum wages, which had been paid to Library Supervisors of Kalaburgi District. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Girish V. Bhat appearing for petitioner and learned AGA-Sri.Sharad V.Magadum appearing for respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioner is appointed as a Library Supervisor in Unchalli Gram Panchayat and has rendered more than 30 years of service as on date. The State Government issued a communication to the respondent No.3 clarifying that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 Library Supervisors are considered as skilled labourers and therefore would become eligible for payment of minimum wages in terms of the Schedule of minimum wages issued by the State Government from time to time. The Minimum Wages Authority, Kalaburgi, passes an order directing the respondent to make payment of difference of six months in minimum wages to Library Supervisors working in Jevargi Taluka, Kalaburgi District. 4. This is said to have been challenged by the State before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench, Kalaburgi, in Writ Petition No.20264/2015. The Writ Petition comes to be dismissed. It is later, the State Government is said to have passed an order making payment of six months of difference to the Library Supervisors working at Kalaburgi. The petitioner then submits a representation seeking the same relief and non- consideration of the representation, led the petitioner to this Court in Writ Petition No.100575/2021, in which, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 petitioner along with others. The said Writ Petition comes to be allowed by the following order: “5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working as Library Supervisor in various Gram Panchayats of Uttara Kannada District for more than twenty years. The Labour Court at Kalaburagi has held that the Assistant Supervisors working in various Gram Pachayat in Kalaburagi District are entitled for payment of six months difference amount of minimum wages. It is also not in dispute that petitioners are also working on par with other government servants as per Annexure-D. The government by its order dated 9.8.2010 vide Annexure-D has held that the Library Supervisors are entitled for enhancement of honorarium on par with other government servants. Hence, it is incumbent on the part of respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 25.11.2020 vide Annexures-J to J59 and pass appropriate order. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of directing respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the representations dated 25.11.2020 at Annexures-J to J59 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 5. A direction was issued to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. This resulted in an endorsement dated 08.10.2021. The said endorsement is called in question by the present petitioner in Writ Petition No.100630/2022. The Co-ordinate Bench disposes the said petition by the following observations: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 “6. The material on record would go to show that the last notification that was issued by the State Government extending the benefits of payment of minimum wages even to the library supervisors working in Gram Panchayat Libraries and Zilla Panchayat Libraries was on 05.08.2016. The petitioner has submitted his representation seeking payment of difference amount on the ground that the minimum wages fixed by the State Government was not paid to him. The said representation was made on 19.11.2020, by then the notification dated 05.08.2016 was already withdrawn by the State Government vide notification dated 04.09.2017. The correctness of issuing of notification dated 04.09.2017 had fallen for consideration before this Court in WP No.22420/2017 which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 24.04.2022. In the said writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the notification dated 04.09.2017 issued by the State Government withdrawing its earlier final notification dated 05.08.2016, on the ground that the notification dated 04.09.2017 was issued without proper and valid reasons as required in law. However, liberty was reserved in favour of the respondents to issue/ pass appropriate orders/directions/notification etc., in accordance with law. Since the notification dated 04.09.2017 issued by the State Government withdrawing its earlier final notification dated 05.08.2016 has been quashed by this Court in WP No.22420/2017, the impugned endorsement Annexure-L which has been issued by the State Government placing reliance on its notification dated 04.09.2017, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-L dated 08.10.2021 issued by the 1st respondent is quashed and the respondent Nos.1 and 2/Competent Authority are directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner afresh in the light of the orders passed by this Court in WP No.100575/2021 disposed of on 15.03.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 6. A direction was issued to respondent No.2 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in the afore-quoted Writ Petition and necessary orders to be passed within three months. What comes about is the impugned endorsement dated 06.08.2024, which is in verbatim similar to the endorsement that was earlier quashed in Writ Petition No.100630/2022. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is similarly situated to the Library Supervisor, who is granted the same benefit in Jevaragi Taluk, Kalaburgi District. The petitioner has been discriminated by the State in making the benefit applicable from prospective date. Learned counsel submits the notification aforesaid issued in the year 2011 comes to be withdrawn by the State. The withdrawal was challenged and the withdrawal of the said notification is quashed. Therefore, what would prevail now is 2011 notification. In terms of which, the petitioner is entitled to minimum - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 wages from the date of the notification. Learned counsel would submit that the State could not have denied payment of the petitioner like the payments made in Kalaburgi District. 8. Per contra, learned AGA would submit that the endorsement so issued is in tune with law. Therefore it should not merit any interference at the hands of this Court. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The orders quoted hereinabove have resulted in the impugned endorsement. A perusal at the endorsement that stood quashed by an order of this Court i.e., dated 08.10.2021, in juxtaposition with the impugned endorsement dated 06.08.2024 would unmistakably indicate that they are verbatim similar. The same defence is now but up to deny the petitioner the difference of minimum wages between 21.02.2011 and 21.08.2011 for a period of six months. 10. It is necessary to notice that the State had challenged the minimum wages that is granted for a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 period of six months before this Court in Writ Petition No.100926/2022. The Coordinate Bench dismissing the Writ petition has observed as follows: “3. This claim by the contesting respondents was based on the Government Order bearing No.PÁ.E 152 J¯ï.qÀ§ÆèJ 2008 dated 21.02.2011. Similar claim was made before the competent officer in Gulbarga in proceeding bearing No. PÁCUÀÄ/PÀªÉÃPÁ/PÉèÃA/Cfð-53/2012 in terms of the order dated 12.06.2013. The claim was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioners filed writ petition No.202674/2015 on the file of High Court of Karnataka, bench at Kalaburgi. Writ petition is dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2015. Against the said order, writ appeal is filed in Writ Appeal No.200369/2015. The said appeal was dismissed on 30.05.2016 confirming the order of learned Single Judge. The State filed SLP No.21549/2016. The said petition is also dismissed. 4. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Learned AGA appearing for the petitioners would contend that the writ petition as well as the writ appeal have been decided without hearing the contention of the petitioner-State. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. It is also pointed out before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the State has made payment in favour of some of the claimants who had the benefit of the order dated 12.06.2013 in Application No.53/2012. This being the position, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the writ petition. The contention that the State was not properly heard before passing the orders in Writ Petition No.202674/2015 cannot be accepted. This order is confirmed by the Division Bench as well as in Writ Appeal no.200369/2015. 6. In the impugned order reference is made to the order passed by the coordinate bench as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of Kalburgi Bench in writ - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 appeal No.200369/2015. And based on said orders the impugned order is passed.” 11. The Coordinate Bench observes that the petitioner therein was entitled to the claim as was granted in Kalaburgi District. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed, on that sole score and becomes entitled to six months difference that is sought for, as a prayer, in the representation. 12. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to observe that the State has repeated the same endorsement despite it being quashed to get over the contempt, such actions needs to be deprecated, as it would amount to a contempt on the face of it, as repeating the same endorsements that are quashed by this Court. This Court is holding its hands in not referring the matter to the contempt Court solely on the score that the petitioner is wanting his six months difference, in minimum wages. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3157 WP No. 106282 of 2024 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The endorsement dated 06.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-M stands quashed. (iii) Mandamus issues to the respondents to make payment of six months minimum wages difference as is being paid to Library Supervisor at Kalaburgi District between 21.02.2021 and 21.08.2011 within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not earlier. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39