- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. L.S. BALASUNDAR, S/O LATE L. A. SHESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER, KSIC UNIT - GOVERNMENT SPUN SILK MILLS, CHANNAPATNA, R/AT NO. 2414, BDA LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN, HAL 3RD STAGE, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 017. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARUNACHALAM SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND SERICULTURE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA SILK INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE), III FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E), REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:29.08.2025 PASSED IN W.P No.7028/2021 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) Unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.7028/202 is before us in this intra Court appeal filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the writ Court. Under the impugned order the writ Court dismissed the petition declining to quash the order impugned therein. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court. 3. Shorn of details, brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under: 4. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Section Officer (Technical), during the year 1970 by the Director of Sericulture and posted to erstwhile Government Spun Silk Mills, Channapatna. In the year - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 1980, the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation1 formed 4 units consisting of GSSM CPT, SWF Mysore, GSF TNP and GSP KKP. 5. The petitioner continued service in the KSIC till 1995. Thereafter finding some personal inconvenience which was coming in the way of discharging his duty, the petitioner sought a request with the management to relieve him under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme2. As there is no such scheme existing as on that date, he had submitted his resignation letter and was relieved on 30.12.1995. 6. After lapse of nearly 19 years, the petitioner made a representation vide Annexure-D, seeking to convert his resignation as voluntary retirement under the VRS. The request was forwarded under the resolution passed by the Board dated 26.09.2017 (Annexure-J) and recommended to the Government to consider the case of 1 KSIC 2 VRS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 the petitioner under the VRS and grant pensionary benefits, since similar benefit has been granted to other three employees. As there was no action taken on the said recommendation, writ petition came to be filed in W.P.No.37210/2018. By order dated 11.06.2019, the writ Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay, which was the subject matter in W.A.No.3809/2019. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.09.2020 has directed the Government to take further action for sanction of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. As no action has been taken in furtherance of the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition in CCC.No.30/2021, which came to be disposed of on 03.03.2021, considering the fact that the accused No.2 therein i.e., the Managing Director of KSIC passed an order dated 22.02.2021, dropping the contempt proceedings, reserving liberty to the complainant to challenge the impugned endorsement. Aggrieved by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 order dated 22.02.2021, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. The case of the petitioner before the Writ Court was that, three other employees who have been accorded the benefit of VRS subsequent to their retirement long ago on resignation, and as he is also standing in toe with those persons, the same benefit may be extended to the petitioner. 8. In contrast, the learned Additional Government Advocate brought to the notice of the Writ Court that there are certain tampering in the records placed by the said three persons, which was brought to the notice of the Government and the Government is preparing to take action to conduct enquiry and also taking steps to stop payment of pension to the said three persons and also proposing to recover the amount from the said persons which has already been paid. In these circumstances, the similarity claim sought by the petitioner is not available in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 law, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in R.Muthukumar and others Vs Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO and Others3, wherein it was held that negative equality neither be claimed nor be granted. 9. The Writ Court considering the fact there is a delay of more than 20 years in submitting the representation under the scheme, is not entitled for the benefit of the scheme and further referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in R.Muthukumar supra held that there cannot be any negative equality and extracting paragraph No.28 of the order passed by the Supreme Court which reads as under: "28. A principle, axiomatic in this Country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. 3 2022 SCC Online SC 151 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 In Basavaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this Court ruled that: "8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated." and applying same on the factual aspects of the case on hand, found that there is no error in the impugned order under challenge and dismissed the writ petition. It is this order passed by the writ Court is called in question in this appeal. 10. Heard Sri.Arunachalam Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri.M.S.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. 11. Sri.Arunachalama, on several contentions argued before us; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 (i) Firstly, that the petitioner has rendered 25 years of service in KSIC, which is a pensionable qualifying service in terms of law, a person/employee who retires after completing the qualifying services is entitled for pensionable benefit. (ii) Secondly, he submits that the Writ Court has erred in law in holding that the plaintiff was directly appointed to KSIC on contract basis in the year 1980 and was not a transferred Government employee and this finding is contrary to the factual admitted position that the petitioner entered into the service under the respondent- corporation in the year 1970, even prior to formation of KSIC. (iii) Thirdly, he submits that the Writ Court has failed to consider the resolution passed by the Board, recommending the case of the petitioner for admitting him under the VRS. (iv) Fourthly, he submits that the delay aspect canvassed by the Writ Court is unsustainable for the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 reason that he has got cause of action to file his representation only when the other similarly situated persons were granted the benefit. (v) Fifthly, the Writ Court failed to consider the fact that the Government Spun Silks Mills was a Government Unit/Public entity and was later taken over by KSIC along with its employees. In that view of the matter the services of the petitioner is continued which ought not to have been brushed aside solely on the basis of writ petition filed subsequently in the year 2024. (vi) Sixthly, he submits that the learned single judge has failed to consider the order passed in the earlier Writ Appeal. With this, he sought to allow the appeal. 12. In contrast, Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the order of learned Single Judge sought to dismiss the appeal on the main ground that no negative equality can be claimed in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in R.Muthukumar case supra. Stressing on the point that - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 the Government has already proposed to initiate action against the said three employees for the tampering of records and even taking action to stop the pensionary benefits and recover the amount which has already been paid. 13. Having considered the rival submissions, we have gone through the entire writ appeal paper. 14. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ appeal considering the fact that other similarly situated persons who have been granted pensionary benefits directed the Government to consider the case of the petitioner, in terms of his request and the recommendation filed. However, the fact remains that the Government after noticing the tampering of records by the three said employees, who have been admitted under the VRS and paid pensionary benefits proposed to take action against the said three persons. In these circumstances, the claim of parity, even if any, claimed cannot be - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 extended in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.Mukthukumar supra. 15. The Supreme Court in the said judgment, in unequivocal terms has made it clear that if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon on a principle of parity or equality and following the judgment of Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer4 held that a wrong committed in an earlier case cannot be permitted to be perpetuated. 16. Having gone through the entire order passed by the Writ Court, we find no infirmities in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The claim of the petitioner on parity ground is not available, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.Muthukumar stated supra, that apart the claim now made is hit by delay and laches. In 4 (2013) 14 SCC 81 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19624-DB WA No. 836 of 2026 that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 ct-vn