Sri. Venugopal. P. Vs the Principal Secretary

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLESS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.R/RECT/CASUAL LABOURS/ ENDORSEMENT / 2022-23 DATED 31.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-O, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.,

¶53

IN WP NO. 13605/2023

¶54

BETWEEN:

¶55

SMT. MALLAMMA

¶56

W/O R M LOKESH

¶57

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶58

SRI. GIRIYAPPA S/O KORALAIAH

¶59

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶60

SRI. K. RAJANNA S/O KARILAKKANNA

¶61

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶62

SRI. K C MAHESHWARAIAH S/O CHENNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶63

SRI. M .S. SHIVANNA (RETD.) S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶64

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

SRI. KUMARAIAH

¶67

S/O BOBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PETITIONERS ARE THE CASUAL LABOURERS WORKING IN REGIONAL RESEARCH STATION KONEHALLY TIPTURU TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 202.

¶68

...PETITIONERS

¶69

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRAIAH R, ADVOCATE)

¶70

AND:

¶71

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶72

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES

¶73

VIKASA SOUDHA

¶74

BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶75

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE KARNATAKA VETERNARY ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCE UNIVERSITY PB NO.06 NANDINAGAR

¶76

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

BIDAR – 585 401 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶79

THE FORM SUPERINTENDENT REGIONAL RESEARCH STATION KONEHALLY, TIPTUR TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 202.

¶80

...RESPONDENTS

¶81

(BY SRI. B P RADHA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 4/11/2024 ISSUANCE OF NOTICE

¶82

TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶83

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.R/RECT/CASUAL LABOURS/ ENDORSEMENT/2022-23 DATED 31.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-O AND ETC.,

¶84

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶85

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶86

7 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

ORAL ORDER

¶90

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions

¶91

seeking for the following reliefs:

¶92

In WP No. 13606/2023

¶93

“a) quash the endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 bearing No.R/Rect/ casual/Labours/ Endorsement/ 2022-23 dated 31/03/2023 vide Annexure-O, by issue of writ of certiorari,

¶94

b) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents authority to consider representation dated 10/04/2023 made by the Petitioners vide Annexure-P, to regularize their services in permanent nature with all consequential benefits such as pension, arrears of salary and other monetary benefits to the Petitioners.

¶95

c) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents authorities to obey the Hon’ble High Court order dated 30/09/2022 passed in WP No.7633/2022 (S-RES) vide Annexure-M,

¶96

d) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit in circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶97

8 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

In WP No. 13605/2023

¶101

“a) quash the endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 bearing No.R/Rect/ casual/Labours/ Endorsement/ 2022-23 dated 31/03/2023 vide Annexure-O, by issue of writ of certiorari,

¶102

b) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents authority to consider representation dated 10/04/2023 made by the Petitioners vide Annexure-P, to regularize their services in permanent nature with all consequential benefits such as pension, arrears of salary and other monetary benefits to the Petitioners.

¶103

c) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents authorities to obey the Hon’ble High Court order dated 30/09/2022 passed in WP No.7634/2022 (S-RES) vide Annexure-M,

¶104

d) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit in circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶105

2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this

¶106

petition are as follows:

¶107

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

The petitioners are stated to have joined the service as a casual labourers working in the third respondent – Regional Research Station. It is submitted that the petitioners have been working for more than 30 years and the second respondent has issued a Circular/Notification dated 12.09.2014, whereby, the second respondent has taken a decision that those employees who joined after 01.07.1984 and have completed 10 years as of 10.04.2006 could be considered for extension of benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012. The similarly placed employees approached this Court in W.P Nos.13263-13268/2017 as well as W.P Nos.3194-3199/2018 and sought for the relief of regularization. The said writ petitions came to be allowed. Pursuant to the order passed in the said writ petitions, the respondents were directed to consider the representations made by the petitioners to the University.

¶110

Further, it is also contented that the similarly placed petitioners, filed a writ petition in W.P No.34001/2019 and

¶111

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court issued direction to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, keeping in mind the observation made in the said order. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a representation for regularization. The respondents did not consider the representation. The petitioners approached this Court in WP No.7633/2022 and WP No.7634/2022. This Court, vide order 30.09.2022, disposed off the writ petitions directing the respondent-University to consider the representation and pass the necessary orders taking note of the observation made in W.P No. 34001/2019 disposed of on 16.07.2021. After the disposal of the said writ petitions, the petitioners submitted a representation vide Annexure – ‘N’ dated 30.12.2022 to the second respondent. The second respondent issued an

¶114

endorsement vide Annexure – ‘O’ dated 31.03.2023, wherein the second respondent rejected the representation submitted by the petitioners for regularization. Hence, these writ petitions.

¶115

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶118

learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶119

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners approached this Court in W.P No.7633/2022 and W.P No.7634/2022, wherein this Court, while disposing of the said writ petitions, referred to the order passed in W.P No.34001/2019. He submits that the petitioners in WP No. 34001/2019 filed a contempt petition in C.C.C No.458/2022. When an order was passed in the contempt proceedings, the respondents in the contempt proceedings preferred Civil Appeal No.5586/2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 30.04.2024, disposed of the civil appeal directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners therein. He submits that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of service in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal

¶120

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

No.5586/2024. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petitions.

¶123

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and submits that in view of the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 , the respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the representation. She also submits that considering the provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Prohibition of Absorption of the Services of the Employees of Establishments in Public Sector into Public Services) Act, 2020, respondent No.2 has rightly issued an endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶124

The learned AGA for respondent No.1 adopted

¶125

the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶126

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

Perused the records and considered the

¶129

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶130

There is no dispute that the petitioners are

¶131

working in the third respondent for last more than 30 years. The similarly placed petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P No.34001/2019. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents to consider the representations and pass an appropriate order. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P No.34001/2019, the respondents did not comply the order passed in the aforesaid petition. The petitioners filed a contempt petition in C.C.C No.458/2022. The contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2022 holding that there is no willful disobedience and allowed the petitioners therein to take recourse to such a remedy as may be available to them. The petitioners approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5586/2024. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while disposing of the said Civil Appeal, has observed, which reads as follows:

¶132

14 -

¶133

NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

“However, we are of the opinion that the said course need not be adopted in the instant facts and circumstances, since the appellants have been litigating for a long period of time and even subsequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing regularization. They have been working in the same capacity and their regularization has not been considered. Therefore, though, at this juncture, we express no opinion with regard to the contempt proceedings in the present appeal, we direct that the Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Sciences University shall regularize the services of the appellants herein in the manner, as has been directed by the learned Single Judge through the order dated 16.07.2021. The order of regularization of the services of the appellants shall be issued to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶136

order.”

¶137

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

9 . The similarly placed petitioners filed the writ petitions in W.P No.7633/2022 and W.P No.7634/2022. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petitions and also referred to the order passed in WP No.34001/2019, disposed of on 16.07.2021, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for regularization of service. The respondents have complied the order passed in W.P No.34001/2019. The petitioners also stands on the same footing. The petitioners are also entitled for the similar benefits on the ground of parity. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P No.34001/2019. The impugned order is arbitrary and perverse and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶140

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶141

16 -

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC:46437 WP No. 13606 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13605 of 2023

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

ORDER

¶145

i) Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶146

ii) The impugned endorsements dated 31.03.2023 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure – ‘O’ are hereby set aside.

¶147

iii) The respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 10.04.2023 in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.34001/2019 within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶148

Pending I.A’s, if any, disposed of accordingly.

¶149

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶150

UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

¶151

Page No.16 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 11.12.2025.

Sri. Venugopal. P. v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venugopal. P. v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Prema Vs Sri.Thyagaraju

Kodavathi Gramapanchayathi Vs Smt Shanthamma

Karnataka State Forest Daily Wage Employees Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil Kumar H M Vs the State of Karnataka

Prof Manjuanth K R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkatesh Ramanna Valmiki Vs State of Karnataka