- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1858 OF 2024 (S-RES) C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1006 OF 2024 IN WA No.1858/2024: BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION V V TOWERS, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 &APPELLANTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND: 1. SRI RAMESH SHERIGAR S/O U.B.SHERIGAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5-134, Digitally signed by BANGALORE ANJANAPPA KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 NO.76, BADAGUBETTU, BAILUR, UDUPI - 576 101 WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY UDUPI 2. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDUPI -576 101 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI T.I.ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE OR MODIFY A PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/12/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.3186/2022. IN CCC NO. 1006/2024: BETWEEN: 1. RAMESH SHERIGAR AGED 53 YEARS S/O U B SHERIGAR R/AT DOOR NO 5-134 NO 76, BADAGUBETTU BAILUR, UDUPI -576101 WORKING AS SECOND DIVISIONAL ASSISTANT UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY K M MARG UDUPI -576 101 ...COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 AND: 1. DEEPA CHOLAN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. PRABHULINGA KAVALIKATTI AGED 44 YEARS S/O BALAPPA DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR V V TOWER, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 3. RAYAPPA AGED 59 YEARS S/O OBBAIAH COMMISSIONER UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY UDUPI - 576 101 ... ACCUSED 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 ... PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR ACCUSED NO.1, 2 AND PROFORMA R4; SRI T.I.ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO.3) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY DISOBEYING/ VIOLATING THE COURT ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.3186/2022(S- RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CCC, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Writ Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3186/2022 (S-RES). The Contempt of Court Case is filed by the petitioner/complainant alleging disobedience of the same Order. 2. We have heard Shri. Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in the writ appeal and for accused No.1, 2 and proforma - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 respondent No.4 in the Contempt of Court case; Shri. Sudesh Kumar Acharya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in the writ appeal and for the complainant in the Contempt of Court case; Shri. T.I Abdulla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in the writ appeal and for accused No.3 in the Contempt of Court case. 3. The Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:- "1. Quash the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 dated 02.12.2020 bearing No.2553 DMA 18 DWE 2013-14/4489 (Annexure P) and also 2. Quash the gazette notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 14.11.2014 vide Annexure J bearing No. NaAaE 114 MLR 2014(Bha-2) Bengaluru insofar as petitioner is concerned. 3. Further direct the respondent No.2 extend the benefit of pay scale and other allowance and benefit to the petitioner similar to the employees who are directly appointed by the municipality with effect - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 from date on which petitioner is entered into the service with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and equity." 4. The learned Single Judge noticed that this Court earlier in Writ Petition No.28915/2015 (S-RES) by order dated 22.10.2018 had recorded a clear finding that the petitioner was absorbed into the service of the Municipality and for all purposes, the petitioner was to be treated as a full-fledged employee of the Municipality, entitled to the salary attached to the post of Second Division Assistant. In view of this specific finding, the learned Single Judge held that the respondent-State could not have issued the impugned order denying the petitioner to an equivalent pay-scale. Consequently, the endorsement dated 02.12.2020 - Annexure P and the Gazette Notification dated 14.11.2014 - Annexure J insofar as, the petitioner was treated as a daily-wage employee, were quashed. The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to extend to the petitioner the pay scale as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 attached to the post of Second Division Assistant from the date of his absorption. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge erred in considering the date of absorption as the date of regularization which is contrary to the prevailing statutory procedure. As on the date of absorption, respondent No.1 had not been regularized as a Government servant and the grant of pay-scale from the date of his absorption would lead to State Exchequer. Respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a Bill Collector on 24.10.1991 for a temporary period of three months and later was absorbed to the Udupi Town Municipal Council on 20.10.1995. The absorption was only as a temporary employee, as that was his existing status. Since respondent No.1 had not completed ten years of continuous service, it is contended that the direction to treat a temporary employee as a Government Servant would result in miscarriage of justice. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 6. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in quashing the endorsement dated 02.12.2020 which was issued pursuant to the Gazette Notification dated 14.11.2014 and the said Notification clearly shows that the employees who had rendered ten years of continuous service were entitled to benefits under the Employees Welfare Scheme. Respondent No.1 being a daily-wage employee was already availing benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 and the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Rules, 2013. At paragraph 11 of the order, the learned Single Judge observed that respondent No.1 had already been absorbed into the service of the Municipality, entitled to be treated as a full-fledged employee and to be paid the salary attached to the post of Second Division Assistant, which is contrary to the record. 7. It is also contended that the letter dated 08.12.1999 issued by the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, to the Commissioner, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 City Municipal Council, Udupi, clearly indicates that respondent No.1 was not a permanent employee and that his services were extended only on a temporary basis as a daily-wage worker on the principle of <equal pay for equal work.= It is therefore contended that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from serious legal infirmities, necessitating interference by this Appellate Court. 8. The learned High Court Government Pleader places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806. 9. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contends that this Court by Order dated 22.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.28195/2015, produced at Annexure 'M', clearly held that the service of respondent No.1 is to be merged with the service rendered in Udupi Municipality for all purposes and that he should be treated as a full-fledged employee for the benefit of salary attached to the post of Second Division Assistant. It is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 submitted that when there is a clear direction issued by this Court, the appellants deliberately refused to disburse the salary. The learned Single Judge had rightly quashed the endorsement dated 02.12.2020 and the Gazette Notification dated 14.11.2014 by which respondent No.1 was treated as a daily wage employee. 10. We have considered the contentions advanced. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 was a temporary appointee under the Badagubettu Gram Panchayath. By notification dated 20.10.1995, the Badagubettu Gram Panchayath was merged with the Udupi Town Municipal Council. The employees of the Panchayath were absorbed to the Udupi City Municipality. Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.43307/2013 (S-RES) seeking pay scale and service benefits. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.09.2013. Thereafter, he had approached the appellants herein with a representation, which was not considered. He again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.5686/2014 (S-RES) which was disposed of by - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 Annexure K - judgment dated 10.03.2014, wherein a direction was issued to consider his grievance. His request was again rejected by Annexure L - endorsement dated 12.05.2015, which was challenged in Writ Petition No.28915/2015. By Annexure M - judgment dated 22.10.2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court specifically found at paragraph No.4 which reads as follows:- "4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the endorsement Annexure-K. From Annexure-C dated 08th December 1999 it is clear that 26 employees of Badagu Betta Grama Panchayat have been absorbed into the Municipality of Udupi and as per the Resolution, the persons working since 21st January 1996 whose names have been listed in the order dated 08th December 1999 were treated as Municipal employees under Sections 357 and 359 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and as per the said provisions, services of these petitioners have been absorbed with effect from the date of entry into service as per Annexure-C. By virtue of this absorption, the petitioner9s service gets merged into the Udupi Municipality and for all purposes, the petitioner shall have to be treated as a fullfledged employee of the said Municipality. When such being the case, the salary attached to the post of Second - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 Division Assistant for which the petitioner9s services has been absorbed, he shall get the same. Any disparity in payment of such salary or any other ground violates Articles 14 and 16(1) read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. When a person works as Second Division Assistant and if he is paid lesser salary, than regularly appointed Second Division Assistant, prior or subsequent to the date of the petitioner, ends up with arbitrariness. Persons similarly situated, viz. like the petitioner herein, whose services has been absorbed as Second Division Assistant, he should get salary which is attached to the post of Second Division Assistant. While issuing endorsement Annexure-K dated 12th May 2015, this aspect has not been considered. Hence it results in non-application of Mind". 11. It was thereafter that the matter was considered again and Annexure N - endorsement was issued, denying the benefit of equivalent pay scale to the petitioner, which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge found that in the light of the findings in the earlier round of writ petition, the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1, herein was erroneous and directed the appellants - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 herein to extend pay scale attached for the post of Second Division Assistant to the petitioner. 12. Such directions had been issued by the learned Single Judge on a specific finding that this Court in the earlier round of writ petition had specifically found that the petitioner had been absorbed into service with effect from the date of his entry into service and that he was to be treated as a full- fledged employee of the Udupi Municipality on account of such absorption. It was also specifically held that the salary attached to the post of Second Division Assistant to which post the petitioner has been absorbed is the right and entitlement of the petitioner. On these findings, the endorsement issued was quashed and the claim of the petitioner was directed to be reconsidered. The learned Single Judge found that in spite of the said direction issued, the Director of Municipal Administration has proceeded to hold that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits only under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012. The learned Single Judge therefore directed that in view of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 clear finding that the service of the petitioner was absorbed by the Municipality and that he is to be treated as a full- fledged employee, he would be entitled to all benefits as a regular Second Division Assistant working in the Municipality. 13. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the earlier findings of this Court at Annexure-M had clearly become final. The appellants had not challenged the findings. The learned Single Judge therefore could not but have relied on the said findings and followed the same. That is all that has been done in the instant case. In view of the clear finding in the earlier judgment that the petitioner has been absorbed as a full time employee of the Udupi Municipality with effect from 08.12.1999, we are of the clear view that there is no merit in the contentions now raised by the appellants. They are disabled from raising such contentions in view of the fact that the Order dated 22.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.28915/2015 (S-RES), has become final. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2071-DB WA No. 1858 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1006 of 2024 14. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention raised by the appellant. In the result:- (i) The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ii) The directions issued by the learned Single Judge shall be given effect to within a period of three months from today. (iii) In view of dismissal of the writ appeal and the extension of time granted to comply with the directions, the Contempt of Court case is closed with liberty to the complainant to approach this Court again in case, the directions issued are not complied with, within the time granted herein. Pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE CP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17