Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38806 (KAR)

THE COMMISSIONER v. SRI BHAGWAN DAS

WA/1874/2025 · 2026-09-02

D K Singh, H Shanthi Bhushan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010765932025 NC: 2026:KHC:47644-DB WA No. 1874 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1874 OF 2025 (S-REG) BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MANGALORE - 575 003. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BHAGWAN DAS, S/O SESAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VISHALAKSHI COMPOUND, PEDAMALE HOUSE, PEDAMLE POST, MANGALORE 575 029. DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT. 2. SRI. RAMESH, S/O LATE BRAHMDAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, C/O SHANKAR DRIVER KANA, SURATHKAL 575 014. 3. SRI. K N PRAVEEN, S/O LATE NARAYANA BANJERA, AGED 44 YEARS, C/O B GANGADHARA, Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010765932025 NC: 2026:KHC:47644-DB WA No. 1874 of 2025 NEAR VINAYAKA TALKIES, BANTWAL 574 219. 4. SRI. VAMAN, S/O LATE SHIPOJARI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SONABA SADANA MAILA GUDDE, VIDYANAGAR PANJIMOGAS POST, MANGALORE 575 013. 5. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O THOMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NADYAPADAVU POST AND VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6. SRI. K SUDHEER, S/O K CHANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, M K B SHETTY COMPOUND, ALAPE KAMBADI ALAPE, MANGALORE - 575 008. 7. SRI. SHAJIL KUMAR, S/O RAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, M S B PRASAD, NEAR MUTHAPPAGUDI, SHAKTHINAGAR, MANGALORE 575 016. 8. SRI. JAGADEESH, S/O BOOBA MESTRY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, GANGANIVASU KOTUKANI ROAD, BEJAI POST, MANGALORE 575 004. 9. SRI. J MOHAN DAS, S/O J VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DR VISHWANATH SUVARNA COMPOUND, JEPPU MAHAKAL IPODAPU, MANGALORE 575 002. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010765932025 NC: 2026:KHC:47644-DB WA No. 1874 of 2025 10. SRI. PRAVEEN, S/O LATE SEEN KUKYAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SEENA NILAYA DEREBAIL KONCHADY, MANGALORE 575 008. 11. SRI. SANTOSH S/O SUBBA SALYAM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOOKAPATNA BANGARE, MANGALORE 575 003. 12. SRI. PRAVEEN SHETTY S/O MARAPPA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, THANTHI COMPOUND, BALEBAIL KAPILAD BEJAI, MANGALORE 575 004. 13. SRI. K GOVIND S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, KAVOORU MILLAKDU 4TH MAIN, KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE 575 015. 14. SRI. HARIYAPPA S/O LATE ALITHAPPA GAIGA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SANJAYNAGAR SHAKTHINAGAR, MANGALORE 575 016. 15. SRI. BABU BANJER, S/O LATE ANGARA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, BOLOOR KALLISHWAR COMPOUND PARAPPU, MANGALORE 575 003. 16. SRI PURUSHOTHAM KOTYAN, S/O DOOMPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, DEREBAILU COMPOUND, LOWER KONCHADY, MANGALORE 575 008. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010765932025 NC: 2026:KHC:47644-DB WA No. 1874 of 2025 17. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE 575 001. MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 18. SRI LINGEGOWDA WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MANGALURU MUNICIPAL CITY CORPORATION, MANGALORE 575 003. PRESENTLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SMART CITY MANGALURU CITY MUNICIPAL MANGALURU 575 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R16; SRI.B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R17) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP NO.4478/2022 DATED 17/06/2025 AND B) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010765932025 NC: 2026:KHC:47644-DB WA No. 1874 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) Heard Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri. Gowthamdev C. Ullal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 16. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.4478/2022 filed by the private respondents. 3. The Writ Petition came to be filed by the respondents challenging the endorsement dated 05.12.2019 whereby their request for regularisation in the appellant-Corporation came to be rejected. 4. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the respondents-petitioners were engaged as daily wagers from the year 1988 as Valvemen and Pump Operator. They all had completed 10 years of employment with the appellant – Corporation between 1988 to 2004. It - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010765932025 NC: 2026:KHC:47644-DB WA No. 1874 of 2025 would also suggest that they were being paid the salary admissible in respect of the post. In order to avoid its responsibility to absorb them the appellant - Corporation says that they were stated have been working to the outsourcing agency, however, the payment of salary was made directly to their account by the Corporation. The Corporation has already regularised the services of similarly placed persons in the year 2016, however, the respondents were left out. 5. Learned Single Judge having noted all the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the judgments of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, Sripal and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 dated 31.01.2025 and Jaggo v. Union of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 has allowed the Writ Petition - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010765932025 NC: 2026:KHC:47644-DB WA No. 1874 of 2025 and directed the appellant –Corporation to pass necessary orders for regularising the services of the private respondents within 15 days from the date of order. 6. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India (supra) however considering the judgment in Umadevi, Jaggo and Shripal, we are of the view that impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE