- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 31926 OF 2025 (S-R) BETWEEN: SRI RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETIRED AS GROUP -D EMPLOYEE, TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, TUMKUR-572103 R/AT AREGUJJANNA HALLI, URDIGERE, TUMKUR-572140 PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING ANY SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 2. TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELAGUMBA ROAD, TUMAKURU-572103 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025 3. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) PARK HOUSE ROAD P.B. No.5329 BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 24/04/2025 BEARING NO. TUDA/SIBBANDI/CR/09/2024- 25/267 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE - P) B) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 24/04/2025 BEARING NO. TUDA/SIBBANDI/CR/09/2024-25/267 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE P) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION AND REGULARIZE HIS SERVICE IN THE CADRE OF GROUP D FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF SERVICE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. C) CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY AND SETTLE PENSION AND PENSIONARY BENEFITS ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18 PERCENT FOR THE BELATED PAYMENT, FROM THE DATE OF DUE TILL ITS REALIZATION, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. 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: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following prayer: a) CALL for records of the impugned Endorsement dated 24/04/2025 bearing No. TUDA/Sibbandi/CR/09/2024-25/267 issued by Respondent No.2 (ANNEXURE - P); b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING the impugned Endorsement dated 24/04/2025 bearing No. TUDA/Sibbandi/CR/09/2024-25/267 issued by Respondent No.2 (ANNEXURE P) and CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization and regularize his service in the cadre of Group D from the date of completion of 10 years of service, in the interest of Justice and equity. c) CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to pay and settle pension and pensionary benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% for the belated payment, from the date of due till its realization, in favour of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity; 2. The petitioner was appointed in the second respondent authority as Group D employee through employment exchange on 05.02.2000 and reported to the duty on 07.02.2000. The first respondent Government approved creation of post of Group D in the second respondent authority for 2 years. The first respondent has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025 passed an order continuing the service of the petitioner as a Group- D employee by extending the creation of post from time to time since the post was essential for effective administration of the second respondent authority. The first respondent extended the approval for creation of post on 18.07.2017 and 17.12.2018 respectively. 3. The petitioner Sri. Timmaraju T and Smt. Sarvamangala D.L were appointed as driver and Group D respectively, in the second respondent authority on 05.02.2000. They approached this Court in W.P.Nos.3445- 3446 of 2016 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the respondents to take decision with regard to the regularization of their services within an outer limit of 10 weeks vide order dated 12.06.2019. The service of the petitioner was extended by the first respondent by approving the post held by the petitioner. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025 respondent for regularization of service and for earned leave encashment for a period of 300 days. The respondent issued an endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularisation. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The second respondent filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioner has submitted a representation for regularisation of service after retirement. It is contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It is also contended that the similarly placed employees filed a writ petition before this court. The said petitioners therein have submitted a representation when they were in service. Admittedly, the petitioner is out of service. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition against respondent No.2. 5. Respondent No.1 has not filed a statement of objections. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has worked in the second respondent authority for more than 22 years. The services of the petitioner is entitled to be regularized. He submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation for regularization of service of the petitioner. But the respondents have rejected the representation. 8. To buttress his arguments he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others vs. State of Assam and others reported in Civil Appeal No.4514/2025 disposed of on 21.05.2026. Further, he also submits that in case if the petitioner is not entitle for regularization, a direction be issued to the second respondent to pay a lum sum amount to the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025 9. Per contra, learned counsel for second respondent submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is belated stage and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. He also submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation after retirement from service. The second respondent has rightly issued an endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the second respondent. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was in service was appointed as Group-D employee in the second respondent about 22 years back and he has rendered service for 22 years in the second respondent authority. Similarly placed employees approached this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025 Court in W.P.No.3445/3446-2016. The Co-ordinate bench vide order dated 12.06.2019 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to continue to pay the salary of the petitioner without discontinuing till the State of Karnataka takes appropriate decision. 13. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the respondents have not regularized the service of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has rendered service for more than 22 years. The petitioner has made a representation for regularization of service after retirement. The representation submitted by the petitioner was at a belated stage. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the regularization of service. However, considering the service rendered by the petitioner for 22 years, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a lump sum amount of ₹4,00,000/-. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to pay ₹4,00,000/- to the petitioner as a lump sum amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ii. Pending IA/s, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS