- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.100418 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. T.N.KUMARASWAMY S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS ATTENDER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KURAGODU, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELLARY, RESIDING AT KURAGOODU (V) AND (P), NEAR KEB, BALLARY ROAD, BALLARY DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S BUILDINGS, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH RAJ MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.19 14:53:08 +0530 MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.19 14:53:25 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 ZILLA PANCHAYATH BUILDING, K.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH RAJ, ZILLA PANCHAYATH BUILDING, K.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BALLARY, BALLARY DISTRICT. 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KURAGOODU, BALLARY TALUKA AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 17.01.2024, 10.07.2024 AND 15.07.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, F1 AND F2 AND REGULARIZED THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER TO WORK AS ATTENDER IN 5TH RESPONDENT OFFICE, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME SPECIFIED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and to regularise his services as an Attender in respondent No.5-Town Municipal Council, Kuragodu. Brief Facts: 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Attender on temporary basis in the year 2007 in Kuragodu Grama Panchayath and has been paid monthly wages since then. In the year 2008, owing to the non-availability of the regular Driver, he was entrusted with additional duties of Driver, which he had continued to discharge along with his duties as Attender. 3. It is stated that his service particulars was duly entered in the service register, showing continuous service of more than 19 years. Subsequently, Kuragodu Grama Panchayath was upgraded as a Town Municipal Council. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 4. In the year 2021, while forwarding the case of the employees for regularization, the petitioner’s name was excluded on the ground that there was no sanctioned post of Driver. The petitioner contends that he was appointed against the sanctioned post of Attender and that the Driver duty was only an additional responsibility. Repeated representations were submitted by the petitioner and proposals were forwarded by the Competent Authorities in the years 2023 and 2024. However, no decision has been communicated to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has rendered continuous service for more than 19 years against the sanctioned post of Attender and therefore, is entitled for consideration. He submits that, there is a recommendation made by the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council to respondent No.4-the Chief Executive Officer, who in turn has forwarded the same to respondent No.2-the Commissioner for regularization of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 petitioner’s services, as he was appointed against the sanctioned post of Attender and not to the post of Driver. 6. It is submitted that, the denial of regularization by the authorities on the ground that there is no sanctioned post of Driver is misconceived and contrary to Annexure- G1, the recommendation made. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another1, wherein the Apex Court emphasised that the State has a constitutional employer cannot indefinitely continue employees on temporary basis when the work is perennial in nature. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents-State submits that the petitioner’s representation would be considered in 1 Civil Appeal No.8558/2018 disposed of on 19.08.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed. 9. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 10. It is not in dispute that: i. Petitioner was initially appointed as an Attender in the year 2007 ii. He has rendered continued uninterrupted service for more than 19 years. iii. His service particulars are recorded in the official service register iv. Additional duties of Driver owing to the administrative exigency for non-availability of Driver. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 v. Proposal and recommendations have been forwarded by the Competent Authority for consideration of his regularization. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially that despite recommendation and repeated representations, the respondents have not passed a reasoned or a speaking order. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh has held at paragraph No.17 to 19 as under: “17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon / Attendant / Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay- level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. 12. The Apex Court in Dharam Singh’s case has reiterated that, the State being the Constitutional Employer, must act fairly and cannot perpetuate ad hoc arrangements where the work is perennial. While this Court is not issuing directions for straightaway regularization, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his claim in accordance with law. 13. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the grievances of the petitioner would be addressed if necessary directions are being issued to the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s claim of regularization in light of the proposal and recommendations - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2002 WP No. 100418 of 2026 already on record and pass a reasoned order within a stipulated time. 14. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner, Directorate of Panchayath Raj, is directed to consider the petitioner’s representations as per Annexures-F, F1 and F2 in light of the proposals at Annexure-G1 and pass a reasoned order within a stipulated period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13