- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33947 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SATHYASHANKARI W/O. MONAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT. SUDHARMA NILAYA, SHIVAJINAGAR, VITTAL, BANTWALA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDANASOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BENGALURU -560 003. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE-575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT OF SUCH NATURE QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE VIDE NO. EST (2) DKDC-4TH RESPONDENT 13011(11)/57/2025E-810631/A1 HIS ENDORSEMENT (ANNEXURE-R) FAILING TO CONSIDER THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES AS PER THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS V/S UMADEVI CASE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs. "(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or writ of such nature quashing the endorsement dated 22.09.2025 issued by the 4th respondent vide No. EST (2) DKDC- 13011(11)/57/2025E-810631/A1 his Endorsement (ANNEXURE-R) failing to consider the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of services as per the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 decision of Apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v/s Umadevi case. (ii) Direct the 4th respondent Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District to consider the representation dated 13.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-N) of the petitioner and regularize her services as per the law laid down in case of Umadevi and provide all service benefits. (iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case, including the award of costs, in the interest of Justice and Equity so far as petitioner Concerned." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the materials on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in addition to the petitioner, two other persons Smt. Vijayakumari and Smt. Gulabi were appointed pursuant to the very same Notification dated 13.08.1986 and the petitioner and the other two persons were - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 working as clerks/typists for more than 38 years of service, as a result of which, they would be entitled to regularization. 3.1 It is submitted that the aforesaid Smt. Gulabi had approached this Court in W.P.No.10600/2023, which allowed the petition and directed the concerned respondents to reconsider the claim of the said writ petitioner for regularization and as such, by invoking/applying the doctrine of parity, the petitioner who is identically/similarly situated to the aforesaid writ petitioner Smt.Gulabi would be entitled to the benefit of the very same order. 3.2 It is further submitted that the aforesaid order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure-M in W.P.No.10600/2023 has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1872/2024 dated 24.11.2025 and as such, the present petition also deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents-State submits that the petitioner is not entitled to seek regularization and the respondents were fully justified in issuing the impugned Endorsement, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an undisputed fact as borne out from the material on record that pursuant to the aforesaid Notification dated 13.08.1986 issued by the respondents, the petitioner along with Smt.Vijayakumari and Smt.Gulabi were appointed as clerks/typists and they continued the services for more than 38 years. When their requests for regularization was rejected by the respondents, who issued impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2025 and the request of the petitioner was not considered by the concerned respondents, the aforesaid Smt.Gulabi approached this Court in W.P.No.10600/2023, which was allowed by this Court and disposed of vide order at Annexure - M dated 23.04.2024 as hereunder: "ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 16.02.2023 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure - T and the report sent by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-S. 2. In support of the contention raised in the captioned writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.12611/2023. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 3. In the present case on hand, the respondents Authorities have issued an endorsement on the ground that condition No. (iv) of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS is not complied. Consequently, an endorsement is issued declining to regularize petitioner's service. However, in the statement of objection, the respondents-Authorities for the first time have cited interim order passed in W.P.No.12610/1993 as per Annexure - R.2. 4. The respondents- Authorities are not in a position to substantiate that the petitioner had benefit of the interim order, which strictly led to protection of his employment. 5. The endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is quite vague. The respondents - Authorities have tried to improve their case only to contest this writ petition by filing statement of objection. The respondents - Authorities cannot place reliance on the Annexure-R.2. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the land mark judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (cited supra) has held that where a daily wager, who has successfully rendered service for a period of 10 years without interruption and without protection by the Court orders or Tribunal Orders, is entitled to be considered for regularization. The respondents - Authorities cannot cited an interim order granted in W.P.No.12610/1993, where petitioner is not a party. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 7. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has served 37 years. The petitioner was appointed on 11.09.1986 as Clerk-cum-Typist and is working as daily wager without interruption. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is not sustainable. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 16.02.2023 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-T and report sent by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-S are hereby quashed. (iii) The respondents are hereby directed to reconsider petitioner's case for regularization strictly adhering to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Umadevi's case and shall not take cognizance of the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.12610/1993. (iv) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off." 6. It is also a matter of record that aggrieved by the said order passed in favour of Smt.Gulabi, the respondents approached the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1872/2024, which was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 dismissed by this Court vide final judgment dated 24.11.2025 as hereunder: "ORAL JUDGMENT" (PER: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D K SINGH) " Heard Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned AGA appearing for the appellants and Sri. Sudhindra.S.A., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.10600 of 2023 (S-RES) by the learned Single Judge. 3. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum- Typist on 11th September, 1986 as daily wager at Nada Office (Nada Kacheri), Kadaba, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Sub- Division, Dakshina Kannada District. The petitioner was further transferred on 07.04.1994 to Gurupura Nada Kacheri as Clerk-cum-Typist. 5. The petitioner gave representation dated 22.04.2006 to the Government for regularization of her - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 services. It appears that the Government had taken a decision on 29.07.2015 to regularize the services of daily wage employees working in Nada Kacheri who fulfilled four conditions as taken note of by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.6 of the impugned judgment. These conditions would include ten years of continuous service without interruption and without protection of any interim order from the Court. 6. The petitioner's services have not been regularized on the ground that the petitioner continued in the employment because of the interim order dated 22.04.1993 granted in W.P.No.12610 of 1993. 7. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the petitioner was not a party in the said writ petition and he did not have the benefit of the interim order. Therefore, the ground taken for not regularization of services of the petitioner as she continued in the employment on the strength of the interim order dated 22.04.1993 granted in W.P.No.12610 of 1993 does not exist. 8. Sri.Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not a party in the said writ petition and infact, she was not enjoying any interim order. However, she continued in the employment for 37 long years without any interruption before the impugned endorsement dated 16.02.2023 came to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 issued. As the substratum of the endorsement dated 16.02.2023 does not exist, we do not find any error in the impugned order and therefore, we dismiss this writ appeal. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, pending interlocutory applications stands disposed of." 7. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1872/2024 dated 24.11.2025 has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents. 8. Under these circumstances, by applying/invoking the doctrine of parity and having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner along with Smt. Vijayakumari and Smt. Gulabi, who were successful in the aforesaid petition and appeal as stated supra, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned endorsement and dispose of the present petition in terms of the aforesaid order. 9. Insofar as the contention urged by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to seek regularization since she had taken the benefit of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 is concerned, even this aspect would have to be considered. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been granted benefit under the said Act or the notification issued under the said Act. In any event, even this aspect would necessarily have to be considered by the respondents while reconsidering the claim of the petitioner and the representation submitted by the petitioner for regularization. Under these circumstances, the said contention urged by the respondents cannot be accepted for the purpose of the said order. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Endorsement at Annexure-R dated 22.09.2025 issued by the 4th respondent is hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the 4th respondent for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner and to consider and pass appropriate orders/take appropriate decision on the representation at Annexure - N dated 13.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14743 WP No. 33947 of 2025 law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8