- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 14096 OF 2019 (S-REG) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVAIAH S/O CHIKKAREVANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS LITERATE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.3, GAUGING SUB-DIVISION, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 009. PRESENTLY WORKING AT: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (VIGILANCE) WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, BASAVA BHAVAN, HIGH GROUNDS, BANGALORE – 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT OF KARNATAKA, 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B J ESHWARAPPA, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, DATED 14.12.2018 VIDE NO.JASAME 23 PWC2018, (ANNEXUER-F). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement issued by the Respondent, dated 14.12.2018 Vide.No.JASAME 23 PWC2018, (Annexure-F), b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the petitioner service in accordance with two scheme Vide.No. G.O.No.GRAAAPA/75/GPAAA/20 01, Bangalore dated 19.07.2022, (ANNEXURE-C) and Vide.G.O.No.AHD/ 125/KAVI/2004, Bangalore dated 20.12.2005 at Annexure-C2, and scheme dated 19.06.2014 at Annexure-C3 Vide.No.LOE/DINOUSE/2007, Bangalore and also in accordance with the high court orders dated 10.09.1999, 15.12.1999 at Annexure-B1 & B2, and further to extend all the consequential benefits on par with regular employees. c) Pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 under the fact and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Literate Assistant in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, No.7, Hemavathi Canal Sub Division, Tumkuru on daily wage basis on 05.10.1987. The petitioner was taken in office of the Inspector General of Police (Vigilance), Water Resources Department, Bengaluru in the year 2000, though, he had completed 26 years, continued on daily wages, and his service was not regularized. On 20.12.2005, the State Government had formulated a scheme to regularize the daily wage employees and few of the employees, who had joined along with the petitioner, were regularized. The petitioner had made a detail representation to the respondent seeking for regularization of his service on parity with the similarly placed employees, on 08.05.2014. The State Government, on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 19.06.2014, had again formulated a scheme to regularize the daily wages employees, but the petitioner was not considered for the same. Again, the petitioner submitted a representation, the respondent did not consider the said representation. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P No.48282/2014. This Court, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his service on the line of the schemes dated 20.12.2005 and 19.06.2014. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner submitted one more representation on 03.05.2018. The respondent has issued an endorsement vide Annexure – F rejecting the petitioner’s representation for regularization of his service. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement dated 14.12.2018, filed this writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned AGA for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Literate Assistant since 1987 and he submitted a representation for regularization of his service. The respondent rejected the representation on the ground that the petitioner was not a party in the earlier writ petitions in WP Nos.33541- 571/1998 and W.P Nos.39117-39176/1999. He submits that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent is contrary to the exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JAGGO vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2024 INSC 1034 and also DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 INSC 998. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondent submits that the impugned endorsement was issued only - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 on the ground that the petitioner was not a party in the earlier writ petitions and he was appointed after 01.07.1984. He submits that, if this Court comes to a conclusion that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent is arbitrary, the respondent may be permitted to reconsider the representation and the liberty may be reserved to the respondent to reconsider the representation. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Literate Assistant in the year 1987 and for the past 30 years, he was working on daily wage basis. The petitioner submitted a representation for regularisation of his service. The respondent did not pass any order on the representation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was forced to approach this Court in W.P No.48282/2014. This Court, directed the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 respondents to consider the representation dated 08.05.2014 on the line of schemes dated 20.12.2005 and 19.06.2014. The respondent did not pass any order on the representation. The petitioner was forced to file a contempt petition in C.C.C No.2158/2018. The Division Bench of this Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, for regularization, within 3 months. 8. The petitioner also submitted one more representation on 03.05.2018. The respondent issued an endorsement rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not a party in the earlier writ petitions and also was not appointed as on the cut-off date as mentioned in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 9. The respondent also submits that the petitioner was appointed on a daily wage basis and the Government has enacted the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees Welfare Act, 2012. The contention of the learned AGA is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JAGGO and DHARAM SINGH (referred supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JAGGO (referred supra), cautioned against the misuse of the temporary engagements, especially in the public sector. The Court borrowed its critique of gig-economic mindset to underline while perpetuating casual status violates the dignity of the labours. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER vs. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 held that the municipalities cannot rely on outsourcing or fiscal excuses to deny the regularization where the horticulture workers had rendered decades of service. The experts reproduces - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 in DHARAM SINGH (referred supra), fortifying the ratio that exploitative and hocism is unconstitutional. The general principles from service law and labour law jurisprudence, example, adverse inference for misusing muster-rolls, prohibition on discrimination among similarly situated employees also guided the Court. 11. Considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DHARAM SINGH, JAGGO and SHRIPAL (referred supra), the matter requires reconsideration by the respondent. 12. In view of the above discussion, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent is contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred supra. Hence, on this ground, the impugned endorsement vide Annexure - F is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46438 WP No. 14096 of 2019 ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned endorsement vide Annexure-F dated 14.12.2018 issued by the respondent is set aside. iii) The respondent is directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.05.2018 in terms of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JAGGO vs. UNION OF INDIA, DHARAM SINGH vs. STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER-SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER vs. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD (referred supra), and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) Pending IA’s, if any, disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25