Sri. N. B. Purohit S/O Bhimacharya Purohit Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI N. B. PUROHIT S/O. BHIMACHARYA PUROHIT, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ENGINEER, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER,SUB- DIVISION-3, BAGALKOTE, TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (BTDA) BAGALKOTE, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT – 587 101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶15

THE BAGALKOTE TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER, BAGALKOTE, KALBURGI DISTRICT – 587 101.

¶16

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶17

Digitally signed by VISHALNINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.21 12:19:10 +0530

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.JASAME 51 PWC 2014 DATED 11.03.2019 PASSED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-L, PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ISSUE A DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION IN TERMS OF THE KAT ORDER DATED 26.8.2020 IN 1430/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AS HELD IN THE CASE OF B.RAJANNA AND ORS AND TO EXTEND ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER REGULARIZING THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER ON COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF SERVICE WITH ALL MONETARY BENEFITS.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:582 WP No. 101845 of 2022

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶27

following relief:

¶28

“a) Call for the records relating to the impugned endorsement issued to the petitioner by operation of the impugned order bearing no. JaSamE 51 PWC 2014 dated 11.03.2019 passed by 1^st Respondent, vide Annexure-L, PERUSE and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.

¶29

b) Issue a direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the KAT order dated 26.8.2020 in 1430/2019 vide Annexure-M as held in the case of B. Rajanna and ors and to extend all the consequential benefits to the petitioner regularizing the services of the petitioner on completion of 10 years of service with all monetary benefits;

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:582 WP No. 101845 of 2022

¶32

c) Pass such other order or orders this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

¶33

Heard the learned Shri Ranganatha S.Jois appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Shri Sharad V.Magadum appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and the learned counsel Shri G.K. Hiregoudar appearing for respondent No.3.

¶34

The petitioner along with several other employees was appointment on daily wages on 26.11.1986 and his services stood terminated on 20^th September 1987. The said termination was challenged before the Labour Court in I.D. No.498/1995. The Labour Court passes an award directing reinstatement of the petitioner in terms of its award dated 22.01.1998. Challenge to the said award before the High Court fails and the petitioner was reinstated on 05.11.1999. It is not in dispute that the Labour Court

¶35

had passed the award setting aside the termination with continuity of service. If that be so, the petitioner is deemed

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:582 WP No. 101845 of 2022

¶37

to have been in service, albeit on daily wages with effect from 26.11.1986 uninterruptedly.

¶38

Identically placed employee whose claim for

¶39

regularization was denied albeit of a different department, had approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1430/2019 and connected cases, the Tribunal allows the application by the following order:

¶40

29. Accordingly, the applications are allowed.

¶41

(1) In A.No.1430/2019, the directions of the first respondent in No.LoE 19 DiNowSe 2018 dated 29-12-2018 at Annexure A7 in relation to the case of the applicant and the endorsement of the third respondent to the applicant with reference to the aforesaid communication at Annexure A6, No. Sa.Kaa.Im.Raa.He. OoVi.Bem. EST.2018-19/730- 35 dated 5-022019, are set aside. The endorsement No. MooRaHe:C1: OoNya: 14287/ 2019/46 dated 2-04-2019 is also set aside. The applicant fulfills the requirements of the first and fourth conditions of Umadevi and is entitled for regularisation on that basis.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-D:582 WP No. 101845 of 2022

¶44

(2) In A.No.3367/2019 and A.No.4881/2019, the endorsements of the first respondent vide no. LoE 14 DhiNowSe 2016 dated 31-01-2019 separately endorsed to each applicant and impugned in the said Applications at Annexures A9 and A11 respectively, are set aside.

¶45

(3) The applicant in A.No.3367/2019, is entitled to be considered for regularisation in terms of the 'principle of parity', with the OM dated 30-061998 with regard to GO No. DPAR 13 SLC 94 dated 29-09-1994 at Annexure A7 of the Application in the case of D R Venkatesha Murthy, Diploma Holder, Daily wage employee which is based on the orders of this Tribunal dated 18-03-1998 and the Hon'ble High Court dated 30-05-1998.

¶46

(4) The applicant in A.No.4881/2019, is entitled for regularisation in terms of the Govt Order No. PWD 56 PFC 98 dated 31-07-1998 which relates to the applicant himself at Annexure A13 of the application.

¶47

Time for compliance is three months from the

¶48

date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶49

This is called in question by the State before the

¶50

Division Bench in Writ Petition No.6285/2021. The Division

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:582 WP No. 101845 of 2022

¶52

Bench rejects the writ petition filed by the State and affirms the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (supra).

¶53

The petitioner who is said to be similarly situated

¶54

is now knocking at the doors of this Court. In that light, mandamus issues, and the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶55

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶58

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 11.03.2019 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-L stands quashed.

¶59

(iii) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the observations made in course of the order, strictly in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months from

¶60