Dismissed¶128

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/8122/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rule 247-A KCSR additional qualifying service for regularized daily-wage employees; parity for similarly situated retirees; Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal Applns 6054-6072/2022; Shivamurthappa Sudi Appln 6347/2004; Dhan Sai Sahu C.A. 564/2020 Larger-Bench pendency; Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Section 2(3); Nagappa W.A. 1856/1986; Supreetha Chandel C.A. 1943/2022; writ petition by Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Ltd. Assistant Executive Engineers dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the writ petitioners; the writ petition was found sans merits and rejected, leaving the Tribunal's order dated 23.06.2023 granting additional qualifying service under Rule-247-A KCSR to the retired employees undisturbed. ¶128

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶128

Issue for consideration

Whether Daily Wage Employees whose services were subsequently regularized and absorbed in the Department are entitled to additional qualifying service under Rule-247A KCSR, given the petitioners' contention that Rule-247A is not applicable to regularized daily wagers who have already taken the maximum benefit of service. +2 more

¶108

Ratio / Principle

The pendency of the Dhan Sai Sahu matter before the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court does not bar consideration of the applicants' cases, because the matter before the Apex Court is with regard to applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereas the issue here concerns Rule-247A additional qualifying service; the Court was therefore unable to accept counsel's contention resting on that pendency.

¶111

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to differentiate the applicants from the other similarly situated persons who have already been granted benefits under Rule-247A of KCSRs; consequently, this Court held that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities needing interference at its hands.ratio¶124
In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, which binds all authorities in the State in similar circumstances, it is not necessary to drive claimants to fresh writ petitions: if a decision has been rendered by this Court, the authorities should follow and extend the benefit of that concluded decision to like cases coming before them.ratio¶120

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 8122 of 2024 (S-KSAT), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Division Bench of B M Shyam Prasad and T.M. Nadaf JJ.; oral order per Justice T.M. Nadaf), decided 09.10.2025 — Three Assistant Executive Engineers of Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Ltd. prayed for certiorari to quash the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 23.06.2023 in Applns. 6054-6072/2022, which — following the Tribunal's earlier decision in Shivamurthappa Sudi (Appln. 6347/2004, 02.04.2010), confirmed by this Court in W.P. 31177/2011 (08.11.2013) and W.P. 52405/2014 & 55406-420/2014 (09.03.2015), and the Government communication dated 12.05.2014 — had granted nineteen retired employees, originally daily wagers later regularized, one to eight years of additional qualifying service under Rule 247-A KCSR. Petition rejected: (i) pendency of Dhan Sai Sahu (C.A. 564/2020) before the Supreme Court's Larger Bench is no bar, the pending question there concerning applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Sec. 2(3); Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976), not Rule 247-A qualifying service; (ii) counsel could not differentiate the applicants from those already granted the benefit, so the Tribunal's order suffered no infirmity; (iii) a concluded decision of this Court binds all State authorities, who must extend its benefit to similarly situated persons without driving each to court (Nagappa, W.A. 1856/1986; Supreetha Chandel, C.A. 1943/2022; cf. Union of India v. S. Shivakumar, W.P. 27354/2024).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.8122 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAUVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., SUB-DIVISION HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 211.

¶13

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.04, H.L.B.C. SUB DIVISION, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, CHENNARAYAPATNA – 573 116

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED H.L.B.C. SUB DIVISION, KRISHNARAJA PETE, MANDYA – 571 426

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. B S GAUTHAM., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶23

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶24

SRI. PUTTARAJA, S/O BIREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK SUPERVISOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT MARAGODANA HALLI, POST & VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶25

SRI. GOPAL K. L., S/O LACHMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK SUPERVISOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT ADAGURU POST & HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶26

SRI. SHIVALINGA, S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RETIRED AS COMPRESSOR OPERATOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION,

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT KALKERE VILLAGE & POST, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK,

¶30

HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶31

SRI. SHANKARLINGE GOWDA, S/O VAIKUNTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED AS DRIVER, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT ASHWING NIVASA, UDAYAGIRI LAYOUT, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶32

SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA B C, S/O CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK INSPECTOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT MAVANUR POST, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶33

SRI. SUBRAMANYA SHASTRI C. K., S/O KASHIBHAT, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RETIRED AS TYPIST, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT BELYA VILLAGE & POST,

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶37

SRI. MAHADEVAPPA C. K., S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETIRED AS DRIVER, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB DIVISION, HLBC SUB DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT JOLANAHALLI VILLAGE, ADANOGODI POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶38

SRI. KEMPEGOWDA, S/O SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK INSPECTOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB0DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT BELAGULU HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶39

SRI. ANNAIAH, S/O MALLASHETTI, RETIRED AS DRIVER, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT ANKANAYAKANAHALLI POST, KASHIPURA, ARAKALGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

SRI. CLEATES RAO E, S/O YEMILRAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED AS PUMP OPERATOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT WARD NO.11, KUVEMPUNAGAR, NEAR MANJUNATH GAS AGENCY, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶43

SRI. KUMARA, S/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORKS SUPERVISOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT NO.3, HLBC COLONY, KUKERI ROAD, K R PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶44

SRI. VENUGOPAL J S, S/O SURYANARAYANASHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK SUPERVISOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT SUNDARANAGAR, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL.

¶45

SRI. NINGARAJEGOWDA, S/O LATE ANDAANIGOWDA,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK SUPERVISOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB DIVISION, HLBC SUB DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT SHARAVANAOOUR, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶50

SRI. NANJAPPA, S/O SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK SUPERVISOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT DODDAMATIGATTA VILLAGE, BALGURU POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶51

SRI. HUSSAIN KHAN, S/O MOHAMMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK SUPERVISOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT OPPOSITEE LADIES HOSTEL, GANESH NAGAR, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶52

SRI. RANGEGOWDA K S, S/O SANNATHIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK SUPERVISOR,

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB-DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT KALASINDA VILLAGE, KALIKERE POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶56

SRI. NANJEGOWDA, S/O LATE CHELVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK INSPECTOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB-DIVISION, HLBC SUB DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT SHIRANAKOPPA VILLAGE, DODDABIGATI POST, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶57

SRI. DEVARAJ, S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RETIRED AS WORK INSPECTOR, HEMAVATHI CANAL SUB DIVISION, HLBC SUB DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RESIDING AT ANEGOL POST, KIKKERI HOBLI, K R PETE, MANDYA TALUK.

¶58

SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, RETIRED AS WORK SUPERVISOR, HLBC SUB DIVISION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, REPRESENTED BY LR,

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHEEMAVADANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADIVINAKOTE POST, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶62

…RESPONDENTS

¶63

(BY V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶64

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2023 IN A.Nos.6054-6072/2022 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE A.Nos.6054-6072/2022 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE; ii) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶65

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

¶66

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶67

ORAL ORDER

¶68

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶69

This petition filed under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by respondent nos.2 to 4, calling in question the order dated 23.06.2023, in Application

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Nos.6054-72/2022, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the applications filed by the applicants therein granting additional qualifying service in terms of Rules-247-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short ‘KCSR’) with respect to the age of the particular applicants as on the date of regularization of their appointments.

¶73

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶74

Heard Sri.B.S.Gautham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶75

Shorn of details, brief factual matrix leading to filing of the present petition are:

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

The applicants were initially appointed as Daily Wage Employees on different dates. In pursuance to the decision of the Government to regularize the Daily Wage Employees, the applicants services were regularized in different payscales on various dates in the respondent-Department and they retired from services on attending the age of superannuation. Subsequent to the retirement, the applicants filed representations dated 13.09.2021, 15.09.2021, 17.09.2021, 22.01.2021, 01.02.2022, 25.08.2022, 29.09.2022 for considering their cases for adding additional qualifying services in terms of Rule-247A of KCSR on par with the other employees, who have been granted such benefits, as per the order of the Tribunal in Application No.6347/2004 dated 02.04.2010 (Shivamurthappa Sudi vs. State And Others), which was confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.31177/2011 (K-SAT), decided on 08.11.2013 and W.P.Nos.52405/2014 and 55406-420/2014 (S-KAT) decided on 09.03.2015.

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

It is the further case of the applicants that

¶83

pursuant to the judgment of the Tribunal, this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Government issued communication dated 12.05.2014, authorizing the Subordinate Authorities to extend the benefit of Rule-247-A of KCSRs insofar as it relates to the Officials have obtained the Court orders in their favour. The appellants are similarly situated and entitled for same benefits. To buttress the arguments regarding application of Rule-247-A of KCSRs, the applicants relied on several judgments which have been stated at page Nos.7 and 8 of the impugned Tribunal’s order.

¶84

On Notice of the application, the respondents filed their statement of objections contending that the applicants are all Daily Wage Employees and their services have been regularized as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, followed by the Government Order, in terms of the said order, they are not entitled for any benefits under Rule-247A of KCSRs. For the reason that, they have

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

enjoyed the maximum benefit and hence, sought for dismissal of the applications even on the ground of delay. It is further contended that the decisions relied on by the applicants cannot be considered as the issue relating to the entitlement of benefit of additional qualifying service under the relevant Rules is pending consideration before the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DHANSAI SAHU vs, STATE OF CHATTISGARH AND OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.564/2020 AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS . It is further contended that in view of the same, the representation of the applicants cannot be considered.

¶89

It is the further contention of the respondent – State that since the applicants were Daily Wage Employees and subsequently absorbed in Government services, they are not entitled for the benefit of additional qualifying service under Rule-247A of KCSR. The applicants though well aware of the fact that they are not entitled for any benefits under the Rules stated supra, have mislead the

¶90

13 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

Tribunal by filing the present representations. In view of the issue pending before the larger bench of Hon’ble Apex Court supra, the case of the applicants cannot be considered at this stage.

¶94

The Tribunal on hearing both the parties, came to a conclusion that the applicants have made out a case for granting additional qualifying services in terms of Rule247A of KCSR. The Tribunal following its own Division Bench judgment in the case of DORAISWAMY M.A. VS. STATE AND OTHERS (1995 KSLJ) 142 , which is further followed in S.HANUMANTHACHAR VS. STATE AND OTHERS has clearly held that, even the Daily Wage Employees, who have subsequently been regularized and absorbed in the Department and being treated as civil servants are entitled for the benefit under Rule-247A of KCSR and the Government has granted benefit on the basis of the said judgment.

¶95

14 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

The Tribunal order by its order particularly in page Nos.11 to 14 has held that the moot question which is raised in the case of DHANSAI SAHU stated supra, which is now pending before the larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court is regarding the question whether the services rendered as ‘daily wagers’ before being regularized and given the status of a regular Government servant, can be reckoned, so as to invoke the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or not? (for short ‘1972 Act’), after the age of superannuation and retirement as State Government Employee. Since the High court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur relying on Section-2(3) of the 1972 Act, has taken the view that the provisions of the 1972 Act have no application to a person who holds a post under the State Government and is governed by any other Act and in particular, the Chattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘the 1976 Rules’). For supra, The Tribunal has held that the subject matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court is as to, whether the services rendered by the Daily Wage Employees before the regularization and given the status of

¶99

15 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

regular government servant, can be reckoned for, so as to invoke the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, or not? But in the case on hand, the relevant issue involved, is with respect to application of Rule-247A for the purpose of calculating the additional qualifying services in respect of government servant who has been appointed / regularized and absorbed in the service after the age of 30 years. Among the applicants, some have been appointed and regularized when they have crossed 31-40 years. In view of the maximum period permissible under the Rule, the Tribunal has granted from 1 year to maximum of eight years additional qualifying service with respect to each applicant, which has been clearly stated in the tabular form at paragraph No.5, starting with page No.14 and ending on page No.15 of the Tribunal’s order.

¶103

In view of the earlier judgment in the case of S.HANUMANTHACHAR, the Tribunal was of the opinion that since the same has not been modified, varied or cancelled, the order is binding on the Tribunal and in that

¶104

16 -

¶105

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

view of the matter, the Tribunal has held that the applicants are also entitled for similar benefit on parity and accordingly allowed the applications, granting the relief sought in the applications. It is this order passed by the Tribunal which is called in question in the present writ petition.

¶108

Sri. Sri.B.S.Gautham with all vehemence submits that the applicants being daily wagers have been regularized subsequently and even their services earlier to the regularisation has been considered and they have taken the maximum benefit of service and now they are not entitled to be considered for additional qualifying service under Rule-247A as the same is not applicable to ‘Daily Wage Employees’, whose service has been regularized subsequently. The issue is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court in DHANSAI SAHU stated supra and till the same is considered, the cases of the applicants cannot be considered. This we are unable to accept in view of the matter ceased before the Hon’ble Apex Court is with regard

¶109

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

to applicability of provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶112

To a query of this Court as to whether the applicants are similarly placed to that of those persons who have already been granted the benefit under Rule-247A in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal as well as this Court supra, the learned counsel is not in a position to differentiate between the persons who have already been granted the benefit with that of the applicants.

¶113

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.27354/2024 in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERS REPRESENTED BY its GENERAL MANAGER

¶114

VS. SRI.S.SHIVAKUMAR AND OTHERS , decided on 09.06.2025 has considered the case of similarly situated persons. After referring to several judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as recent judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lt.SUPREETHA CHANDEL

¶115

VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1943/2022,

¶116

18 -

¶117

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

DATED 09.12.2024 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.14, 18 and 19 held that it is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the Government department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to Court and came to a conclusion that denial of the same rights on parity grounds, when the same has been granted to others by the Department of Railways in the case stated supra is arbitrary and allowed the application granting the very same benefit.

¶120

That apart, this Court way back in the year 1986 in the case of NAGAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA in Writ Appeal No.1856/1986 dated 01.08.1986 , in unequivocal terms has stated that it is unnecessary for the appellants (therein) to approach this Court by way of Writ Petitions. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, which binds all the authorities in the State in the similar circumstances, it is not necessary to

¶121

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

entertain the petition of the applicants, on the premise that if a decision has been rendered by this Court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases coming before them. That should be the guiding principle to be borne in mind in the administration. It is not proper to drive every person to seek relief in this Court. It is indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of the concluded decision of this Court to all other similar cases’.

¶124

As the appellant is not in a position to differentiate the applicants herein as well as the other similarly situated persons who have already been granted benefits under Rule-247A of KCSRs stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities, which needs any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶125

20 -

¶126

NC: 2025:KHC:39961-DB WP No. 8122 of 2024

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

Accordingly, the writ petition sans merits and

¶129

resultantly rejected.

¶130

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶131

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶132

¶133

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAUVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., SUB-DIVISION HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT¶12
B S Gautham
petitioner
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.04, H.L.B.C. SUB DIVISION, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, CHENNARAYAPATNA¶14
B S Gautham
petitioner
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, H.L.B.C. SUB DIVISION, KRISHNARAJA PETE, MANDYA¶15
B S Gautham
respondent
STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT¶22
V. Shiva Reddy
respondent
THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA¶23
V. Shiva Reddy
respondent
SRI. PUTTARAJA, S/O BIREGOWDA (RETIRED WORK SUPERVISOR)¶24
respondent
SRI. GOPAL K. L., S/O LACHMEGOWDA (RETIRED WORK SUPERVISOR)¶25
respondent
SRI. SHIVALINGA, S/O MUNISWAMY (RETIRED COMPRESSOR OPERATOR)¶26
respondent
SRI. SHANKARLINGE GOWDA, S/O VAIKUNTEGOWDA (RETIRED DRIVER)¶31
respondent
SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA B C, S/O CHIKKEGOWDA (RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR)¶32
respondent
SRI. SUBRAMANYA SHASTRI C. K., S/O KASHIBHAT (RETIRED TYPIST)¶33
respondent
SRI. MAHADEVAPPA C. K., S/O KRISHNEGOWDA (RETIRED DRIVER)¶37
respondent
SRI. KEMPEGOWDA, S/O SUBBEGOWDA (RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR)¶38
respondent
SRI. ANNAIAH, S/O MALLASHETTI (RETIRED DRIVER)¶39
respondent
SRI. CLEATES RAO E, S/O YEMILRAO (RETIRED PUMP OPERATOR)¶42
respondent
SRI. KUMARA, S/O CHANDRASHEKAR (RETIRED WORKS SUPERVISOR)¶43
respondent
SRI. VENUGOPAL J S, S/O SURYANARAYANASHASTRI (RETIRED WORK SUPERVISOR)¶44
respondent
SRI. NINGARAJEGOWDA, S/O LATE ANDAANIGOWDA (RETIRED WORK SUPERVISOR)¶45
respondent
SRI. NANJAPPA, S/O SUBBEGOWDA (RETIRED WORK SUPERVISOR)¶50
respondent
SRI. HUSSAIN KHAN, S/O MOHAMMED KHAN (RETIRED WORK SUPERVISOR)¶51
respondent
SRI. RANGEGOWDA K S, S/O SANNATHIMMEGOWDA (RETIRED WORK SUPERVISOR)¶52
respondent
SRI. NANJEGOWDA, S/O LATE CHELVEGOWDA (RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR)¶56
respondent
SRI. DEVARAJ, S/O MARIGOWDA (RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR)¶57
respondent
SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY LR SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA¶58

Coram

AI extract

B M SHYAM PRASADmember¶66
T.M.NADAFauthor¶68

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. State of Karnataka

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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Informatica Llc

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Altair Engineering Inc.

Shivamadaiah M Vs the Director General

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs H K Thppeswamy

Sri.Prashant Kumar G Vs the Union of India

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka