Disposed¶48

Sri Umesh a v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2025WP/21472/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation of service; representation Annexure-B dated 16.05.2025 not considered by Respondent No.1; direction to decide representation within 3 weeks; writ petition disposed without deciding entitlement; temporary employment contention by respondents; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; Chief Commissioner and Medical Officer Health (Malleshwaram Division), Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP); electric crematorium helper; mandamus; legal obligation to pass order on representation; pending IA(s) disposed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to consider the representation vide Annexure-B dated 16.05.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order; pending IA(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ¶48

Sri Umesh a Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.1 was obliged to pass an order on the petitioner's representation (Annexure-B dated 16.05.2025) seeking regularisation of his service. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

Once Respondent No.1 received the petitioner's representation, it was under a legal obligation to pass an appropriate order on it and could not keep the representation pending for a long time.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Directing Respondent No.1 to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders would cause no injustice to Respondent No.1.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ashok S. Kinagi, J.), order dated 15-12-2025 in W.P. No. 21472/2025 (S-RES): The petitioner, a helper at the Sathya Harishchandraghat Electric Crematorium under Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, sought a mandamus directing regularisation of his service from the date he completed ten years of service, with salary fixation, arrears and terminal benefits. Respondent No.1 (Chief Commissioner, BBMP) had failed to pass any order on the petitioner's representation dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure-B). Holding that once a representation is received the authority is under a legal obligation to pass an appropriate order and cannot keep it pending indefinitely, and that a direction to consider it would cause no injustice, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No.1 to consider Annexure-B and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three weeks of receipt of a certified copy. The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner's entitlement to regularisation itself. Respondents had contended the petitioner worked on a temporary basis, for which reason the representation was not considered.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53519 WP No. 21472 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 21472 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI UMESH A S/O LATE. ANNEYAPPA AGED 35 YEARS, WORKING AT SATHYA HARISHCHANDRAGHAT ELECTRIC CREMATORIUM HELPER, MALLESHWARAM, RAJAJINAGAR WEST, BENGALURU-560 003 …PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU -560 002.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:53519 WP No. 21472 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

2. MEDICAL OFFICER HEALTH,

¶19

MALLESHWARAM DIVISION, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶20

BENGALURU -560003

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM THAT DAY ON WHICH THE PETITIONER COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO FIXATION OF THEIR SALARIES AS SUCH REGULARIZATION AS OBTAINING TO A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE FROM THAT DATE THEY COMPLETE 10 YEARS OF SERVICE, AND HE IS ENTITLE FOR ARREARS OF SALARY, AND ALSO THE PERIOD OF SERVICE SHALL BE TREATED FOR ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, THAT WOULD FOLLOW FROM SUCH REGULARIZATION. THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH AND SHALL BE COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF PENSION AND ALL OTHER INCIDENTAL TERMINAL BENEFITS INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS PETITION.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53519 WP No. 21472 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent No.1 to regularise the service of the petitioner from the day on which the petitioner completed 10 years of service with all consequential benefits that would follow from such regularisation. The petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-B seeking regularisation of his service to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has not passed any order on the representation. Hence, this writ petition.

¶30

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

¶32

the petitioner has submitted a representation vide Annexure-B and no order is passed by respondent No.1. Hence, he submits that, a direction may be issued to respondent No.1 to consider Annexure-V and pass an

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53519 WP No. 21472 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

appropriate order. Accordingly, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶36

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents

¶37

submits that, the petitioner worked on a temporary basis. Hence, the representation was not considered. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶38

Perused the records and considered the

¶39

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has submitted a representation vide Annexure-B dated 16.05.2025. Once respondent No.1 received the representation, it is a legal obligation on the part of respondent No.1 to pass an appropriate order on the said representation. Respondent No.1 cannot keep the representation pending for a long time. As no order has been passed by respondent No.1 on the representation vide Annexure-B, if directions are issued to respondent No.1 to consider the representation and pass the

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53519 WP No. 21472 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

appropriate orders, no injustice would be caused to respondent No.1.

¶44

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶45

pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The writ petition is disposed of ;

¶48

ii. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation vide Annexure-B dated 16.05.2025, and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶49

iii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶50

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶51

PA CT:KHV

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

Sri Umesh a v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Umesh a v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G B Yatnatti Vs the Managing Director

Sri .H Channegowda Vs the Registrar and Administrative Officer

Smt. Varalakshmi L Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Appointing Authority

Sri Ugrappa Vs Sri Narayanappa

Sri. Shailesh Kumar Vs the Union of India

Sri H S Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka