Dismissed¶49

Sri B Lakshmana v. Managing Director

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2025WA/986/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of daily-wage watchman appointed 1990; Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited; one-time regularization cut-off of 10 years' service as on 23.06.1998; no similar regularization after that date; benefits under Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 already granted; Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cited by counsel; writ appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act against Single Judge's order dated 01.12.2021 in W.P.No.5566/2021 (S-RES); intra-Court appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed and all pending interlocutory applications were directed to stand dismissed. ¶49

Sri B Lakshmana Vs Managing Director — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal was dismissed and all pending interlocutory applications were directed to stand dismissed.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, a daily-wage watchman appointed in 1990 who continued in service until superannuation but had not completed 10 years of service as on 23.06.1998, was entitled to regularization of his services.

¶37

Court's answer

No similarly situated employee had been granted the benefit of regularization under the respondent-Corporation after 23.06.1998.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The learned Single Judge's view that the petitioner did not have a right to insist on regularization of his services in the absence of any such regularization being granted to any similarly situated employee after 23.06.1998 cannot be interfered with in this intra-Court appeal; the appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.

¶46

Key takeaways

The appellant had been appointed in the year 1990 and had continued in service; the entire benefits of the 2012 Act had been granted to him and he had also retired from service.obiter¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (per Anu Sivaraman J.) dismisses Writ Appeal No.986 of 2022 (S-RES), filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act by a daily-wage watchman of Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited seeking regularization of services, challenging the learned Single Judge's order dated 01.12.2021 in W.P.No.5566/2021 (S-RES). The Corporation had regularized daily-wage employees as a one-time measure only where 10 years of service had been completed as on 23.06.1998; the appellant, appointed in 1990, had not. The Court found that no similarly situated employee had been granted regularization after 23.06.1998. The appellant had already received the entire benefits of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 through earlier proceedings (W.P.No.18752/2014, order dated 19.09.2018; W.A.No.1257/2019, order dated 08.07.2019 directing consideration of his regularization claim, subsequently rejected by the Government) and had retired. Holding that the Single Judge's view could not be interfered with in the intra-Court appeal, the appeal and all pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.986 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. B. LAKSHMANA S/O SHEENAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. BOLLUR HOUSE ALETTY VILLAGE AND POST SULLIYA TALUK D.K.-574 239

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VANAVIKAR 18^TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003

¶14

2 . THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶15

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED KULASHEKARA MANGALURU-575 004

¶16

¶17

¶18

3 . THE DEPUTY MANAGER (FACTORIES CLF) MADINADKA ALETTY VILLAGE AND POST SULLYA TALUK D.K. -574 239

¶19

4 . THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIORNMENT AND BIOLOGY (FOREST-A) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.5566/2021 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶29

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging by the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5566/2021 (S-RES).

¶30

We have heard Shri. Narayana Bhat. M, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.4.

¶31

The Writ Petition had been filed challenging Annexure 'A' - letter dated 23/27.01.2020 issued by respondent No.4 and the endorsement at Annexure 'B' Dated 31.01.2020 by respondent No.1.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had been continuing in service from 01.08.1990, as watchman and that he had attained the age of superannuation while working against the said post. It is submitted that in view of the fact that he had completed

¶33

¶34

¶35

10 years of service in the year 2000. He was entitled to regularization even in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . It is submitted that the refusal to grant regularization to the appellant when the benefit had been granted to other similarly situated persons was completely untenable.

¶36

Further, the learned counsel also places reliance on the later judgments of this Court. However, we find that no similarly situated employee had been granted the benefit of regularization under the respondent - Corporation after 23.06.1998.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate submit that the Corporation had regularized the services of employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 23.06.1998 as a one time measure. It is submitted that the appellant at the relevant time had not completed 10 years of service and as such was not entitled

¶38

¶39

¶40

for regularization. It is submitted that thereafter, an order was passed on 19.09.2014 granting the benefit of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 ('2012 Act' for short) to the writ petitioner. The said order was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.18752/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 19.09.2018, holding that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits under the 2012 Act. Thereafter W.A.No.1257/2019 was filed which was also considered and disposed of by order dated 08.07.2019. In the said order, while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, a further direction was issued to the Government to consider the claim of the appellant for regularization.

¶41

The Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the request for regularization. It was stated that an order dated 23.04.1993 in W.P.No.12610/1993 was the reason for continuing daily wage employees appointed after 01.07.1984 and that as such, the petitioner was not a person who had continued in service for 10 years without any intervention of the Court. It

¶42

¶43

¶44

was further found that the order of regularization granted in respect of other daily wage employees was specifically confined to those employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 23.06.1998.

¶45

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the appellant had been appointed in the year 1990 and had continued in service. The entire benefits of the 2012 Act had been granted to the appellant and he had also retired from service. The Government have taken a specific contention that it was only on account of interim orders passed in the writ petitions filed by the employees of the respondent - Corporation that the services of the daily wagers had been extended.

¶46

In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner did not have a right to insist on regularization of his services in the absence of any such regularization having been granted to any similarly situated employee after 23.06.1998, cannot be interfered with by this Court in this

¶47

¶48

¶49

intra-Court appeal. The intra-Court appeal therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶50

All pending interlocutory applications shall stand

¶51

dismissed.

¶52

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶53

JUDGE