A contract peon sought quashing of an endorsement refusing regularization and pay fixation under the 7th Pay Commission. The court held he entered service after Umadevi and the post was sanctioned only for deputation, so no claim for regularization arose. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.104019 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
VENKATESH S/O. BABAYYA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PEON, R/O: PRASHANTH NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, GAVISRI NAGAR, KOPPAL - 583 231.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY CHANAL AND SRI G.D.PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ORDER NO. � � ������ � � ��� � ������� DATED 18/04/2024 DATED THE COPY IS PRODUCED ANNEXURE-J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO REGULARIZE THE POST OF THE PETITIONER AND ALSO FIX THE 7TH PAY COMMISSION ALONG WITH PAY THE ARREARS OF PAYMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12916 WP No. 104019 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging endorsement dated 18.04.2024 issued by respondent no1 at Annexure-J and writ of mandamus directing respondent no.1 to regularize petitioner in his post as peon and also fix pay as per 7th Pay Commission along with arrears.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12916 WP No. 104019 of 2024
be considered for regularization as a onetime measure. It was submitted, since said exercise had not begun, petitioners were entitled for being considered.
approached this Court in W.P.no.103083/2022, which was disposed of 06.12.2022 with a direction to consider petitioner’s representation. Impugned endorsement was a result of such consideration. It was submitted that reason assigned in endorsement that there was no scope for regularization as post in which petitioner was working was sanctioned to be filled by deputation and not by appointment was illegal.
regularization as one time measure, in case of those employees who were working either casual, dailywage or Adhoc employees for more than 10 years as on date of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (10.04.2006), that too without intervention or in pursuance of Court orders. In M.L.Kesari’s case (supra), it was clarified that said benefit of regularization would be available only to those who were appointed irregularly and not illegally.
other department, regularization has to be in that department i.e., parent or lending department. But facts of present case do not support drawing such parallel. Hence, there are no good grounds to quash Annexure-J.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE
EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contract peon with over 10 years of service was entitled to regularization under the Umadevi/M.L.Kesari one-time measure despite the post being sanctioned for filling by deputation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka and Others v. M.L.Kesari and othersReferred¶6
(2010) 9 SCC 247 · Who else cites this
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and othersRelied on¶6
(2006) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VENKATESH S/O. BABAYYA
THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITIES
THE COMMISSIONER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RAVI V.HOSMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
