Dismissed¶128

The State of Karnataka v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026/37850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of long-serving daily-wage/consolidated-pay employee; Attender-cum-Sweeper, Sports School, Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports; 10 years continuous service as on 06.07.2005; Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 para 53 one-time measure; M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247; Jaggo 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Dharam Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 1735; Sri Thyagaraju W.P.No.3805/2023; Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal order upheld; writ petition dismissed; Article 226/227 Constitution of India; Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act 2012; State of Karnataka v. Lakshmi Devi; WP 37850/2025 (S-KSAT).

What did the court decide?

The point framed — whether the impugned Tribunal order warrants interference — is answered in the negative; the Tribunal's order does not warrant interference. ¶67

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Lakshmi Devi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶128

Issue for consideration

In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.4741/2024 warrants interference? +1 more

¶66

Court's answer

The point framed — whether the impugned Tribunal order warrants interference — is answered in the negative; the Tribunal's order does not warrant interference.

¶67

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners do not dispute the respondent's appointment as Attender-cum-Sweeper on 06.07.1995 on consolidated/cumulative pay basis with the Sports School at Vidyanagar, Bengaluru, nor her service of more than 29 years (nearly 30 years as on date).

¶68

Key takeaways

The post of Attender-cum-Sweeper in the sports school is an essential post, and the respondent's continuation for more than 30 years shows the petitioners needed her service.ratio¶72
After taking the respondent's service for over 30 years, it is not open to the petitioners, at this length of time when regularization has cropped up, to contend that the respondent has no qualification for the Group-'D' post of Attender-cum-Sweeper.ratio¶72
The Tribunal, noting that the respondent had completed more than 29 years of service and had completed 10 years of continuous service as on 06.07.2005 and noting the continuance of her service, directed regularization; this Court finds no error in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Cav order per S.G. Pandit J.; bench with K.V. Aravind J.) dismisses the State's writ petition challenging the KSAT order dated 30.06.2025 in Application No.4741/2024, which had directed the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports to consider regularization of the respondent, Attender-cum-Sweeper (appointed 06.07.1995 on consolidated/cumulative pay basis; nearly 30 years' service), from the date of completion of ten years of service (10 years completed as on 06.07.2005) with consequential benefits. Holding that the post is an essential Group-'D' post and that after extracting decades of service it is not open to the State to contend the employee lacks qualification or that the appointment is irregular/illegal, the Court applies Dharm Singh (2025 SCC Online SC 1735), Jaggo (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), M.L. Kesari ((2010) 9 SCC 247) explaining Umadevi ((2006) 4 SCC 1) para 53, and the co-ordinate bench decision in Sri Thyagaraju (W.P.No.3805/2023, dated 14.07.2025), answering the framed point in the negative.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.37850/2025 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH

¶11

EMPOWERMENT AND SPORTS

¶12

M.S. BUILDING

¶13

BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF YOUTH EMPOWERMENT AND SPORTS STATE YOUTH CENTRE, YAVANIKA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

¶15

BENGALURU – 560001.

¶16

... PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶18

AND :

¶19

SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O P NARAYANA

¶20

¶21

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS ATTENDER CUM SWEEPER GOVERNMENT SPORTS HIGH SCHOOL VIDYA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH-562157 R/AT GOVERNMENT QUARTERS VIDYA NAGAR BENGALURU NORTH–562157.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI M.S. BHAGWATH, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI K. SATISH, ADV.)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.4741/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2025 IN APPLICATION NO.4741/2024 PASSED BY THE KSAT, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS.

¶25

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 04.02.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY , S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND

¶27

¶28

CAV ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶30

The State Authorities in the Department of Youth Empowerment and Sports are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 30.06.2025 in Application No.4741/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the respondent’s application for a direction to the petitioners to consider her case for regularization of her service in the cadre of Attender-cum-Sweeper with effect from the date she completed ten years of service with consequential benefits is allowed.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that, it is the

¶32

case of the respondent that she was appointed on consolidated/cumulative pay basis with the Sports School at Vydyanagar, Bengaluru, as Attender-cum-

¶33

¶34

Sweeper. The applicant, along with similarly placed persons approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.1366-1371/1999 with a prayer for regularization from the date of appointment. The Tribunal disposed of the same by order dated 26.07.2007, directing the respondent as well as similarly situated persons to make individual representations to the authorities concerned seeking regularization. Accordingly, it is stated that the respondent is said to have submitted a presentation and there was no action by the petitioners on the said representation. In the meanwhile, the respondent’s consolidated pay was enhanced by order dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure-A4).

¶35

It is stated that Annexure-A6 dated 28.06.2014, details of the applicant were sought and the Director, Youth Services and Sports Department, by letter dated 21.02.2015, forwarded the details of the respondent and recommended for consideration of

¶36

¶37

respondent’s case under the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012 (for short, ‘2012 Act’). Even to that, there was no response and no order was passed under 2012 Act.

¶38

It is stated that one Rajanna, Assistant

¶39

Teacher in the same department, approached this Court in W.P.No.22179/2014 and this Court by order dated 11.01.2016 directed consideration of his case

¶40

for regularization. Accordingly, vide order dated 30.06.20174 of the petitioners, services of the said Rajanna was regularized. On the similar lines, respondent requested for consideration of her case for regularization by making representation dated 03.01.2024. As there was no action, the respondent approached the Tribunal in the above stated application seeking regularization of her services, stating that she is working as Attender-cum-Sweeper

¶41

¶42

for more than 29 years and she would be entitled for regularization.

¶43

The Tribunal on consideration of the case of

¶44

the respondent and on placing reliance on the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in JAGGO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS¹ directed the petitioners to consider the representation dated 03.01.2024 for regularization of services of the respondent as Attender-cum-Sweeper effective from the date of her completion of 10 years of service with consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the State Authorities are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶45

Heard learned Additional Government

¶46

Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for petitioners, learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawath for Sri.K.Sathish,

¶47

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826

¶48

¶49

learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶50

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶51

Sri.Vikas Rojipura, in addition to the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition, submits that the respondent would not be entitled for consideration of her case for regularization since her appointment is irregular/illegal. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the respondent is not appointed through regular selection process and the employees who have entered from back door would not be entitled for regularization.

¶52

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶53

would further submit that the respondent would not fulfill the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI (3) AND

¶54

¶55

OTHERS² . Particularly, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the

¶56

respondent is not appointed to a sanctioned post nor she would possess the qualification required for the post of Attender-cum-Sweeper. Learned Additional Government Advocate would place reliance on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court contend that including UMADEVI (supra) to contend that irregularly and illegally appointed persons would not be entitled for regularization and also to contend that the daily wager appointed contrary to law would not get right to seek regularization. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶57

On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawath for respondent would contend that

¶58

the respondent has served more than 29 years in the

¶59

2 (2006) 4 SCC 1

¶60

¶61

petitioners’ department and she would be entitled for regularization. Learned senior counsel would submit that the respondent was appointed to a sanctioned post by the competent authority and as on the date of her appointment, there was no qualification prescribed for the post of Attender-cum-Sweeper. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate and he prays for rejection of the said contention that the respondent would not fulfill the criteria prescribed under UMADEVI (supra). Learned senior counsel in the matter of regularization, places reliance on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in JAGGO (supra) and also DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER³ . Thus, he would support the order passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶62

3 2025 SCC Online SC 1735

¶63

¶64

9. Having heard the learned counsel

¶65

appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the point which falls for our consideration is as to,

¶66

In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference?

¶67

Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:

¶68

The petitioners would not dispute the appointment of the respondent as Attender-cumSweeper on 06.07.1995 on the consolidated/ cumulative pay basis with the Sports School at Vidyanagar, Bengaluru. The petitioners would also not dispute the services rendered by the respondent for more than 29 years and continuance of the respondent as Attender-cum-Sweeper as on this date. It is also a fact that the respondent as on the date of making application before the Tribunal had completed

¶69

¶70

nearly 29 years and as on this date she has completed

¶71

nearly 30 years of service as Attender-cum-Sweeper.

¶72

The main contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate for petitioners is that the respondent was not appointed to a sanctioned post and would not fulfill the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI (supra). The post of Attender-cum-Sweeper in sports school is one of the essential post and as the respondent was continued for this length of time i.e., more than 30 years, the petitioners were in need of her service. Having taken respondents service for these many years, at this length of time, when the question of regularization has cropped up, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that respondent ahs no qualification, that too a Group-‘D’ post of ‘Attender-cum-Sweeper’.

¶73

¶74

The Tribunal taking note of the fact that the respondent has completed more than 29 years service and respondent has completed 10 years of continuous service as on 06.07.2005 and taking note of the continuance of the respondent’s service, directed regularization. We do not find any error in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶75

The Hon'ble Apex Court in DHARM SINGH AND OTHERS (supra) after noticing UMADEVI (supra) and subsequent cases in the matter of regularization at paragraph 13, 17 and 18, it observed as follows:

¶76

“ 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not “fulltime” employees but continue only by virtue of

¶77

¶78

interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.

¶79

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a

¶80

¶81

talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

¶82

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.”

¶83

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

¶84

case of SRI THYAGARAJU VS. THE STATE OF

¶85

¶86

KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER⁴ considering identical contention raised by the petitioners/State, at paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 has held as follows:

¶87

“21. The contention of the State that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 and as the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Constitutional Scheme, he would not be entitled for regularization is untenable and cannot be countenanced. It is too late in the day after having continued the petitioner on temporary/daily wage basis for more than 35 years, the contention that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme, is misplaced. It is not open at this length of time for the State to contend that the petitioner’s appointment is illegal. It is for the State to think and take a decision before appointing a person on temporary basis. A person who is offered employment on daily wage or temporary basis would have no choice in the days of unemployment and he would be compelled to accept employment on temporary

¶88

4 W.P.No.3805/2023 DATED 14.07.2025

¶89

¶90

or daily wage basis due to pressing needs. The State, after appointing a person on daily wage or temporary basis, cannot be permitted at this length of service to contend that his appointment is contrary to Article 14 or Constitutional Scheme. The State has an obligation to comply Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme before making appointment. Having made appointments even to say contrary to Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme, it cannot blame the employee for accepting such employment, that too after 35 years.

¶91

22. Learned Additional Government Advocate places reliance on the decision in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) to contend that a daily wager who is appointed contrary to law is not entitled for regularization. The decision in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI (3) (supra). Paragraph 53 of the UMADEVI (3) (supra) provides for regularization of a daily/temporary employee on certain circumstances, if he fulfills the conditions laid down therein. Since the

¶92

¶93

petitioner herein fulfills the criteria laid down for regularization in UMADEVI (3) (supra), the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) would not be an impediment to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. Moreover, based on the facts, we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed to a vacant post of Hawaldar, as indicated in the order of appointment dated 27.12.1984 (Annexure-A8).

¶94

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. M.L.KESARI AND OTHERS⁵ explained its earlier decision in UMADEVI (3) (supra), at paragraphs 7, 8 and 11, which we reproduce as follows:

¶95

“ 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against “regularisation” enunciated in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], if the following conditions are fulfilled:

¶96

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly

¶97

5 (2010) 9 SCC 247

¶98

¶99

sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶100

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

¶101

8. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps

¶102

¶103

to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a onetime measure. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006).

¶104

11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then

¶105

¶106

periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] as a one-time measure. ”

¶107

¶108

24. In the case of JAGGO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS⁶ , the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the regularization of part time/contractual employee and at paragraphs 10, 12, 13, 14, 21 and 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:

¶109

“ 10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.

¶110

12. Despite being labelled as “parttime workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods,

¶111

6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826

¶112

¶113

ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

¶114

13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers

¶115

¶116

with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

¶117

14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.

¶118

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the

¶119

¶120

surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.

¶121

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as

¶122

¶123

a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. ”

¶124

25. In the case on hand also, the petitioner is continued on daily wage/temporary basis for nearly 35 years. After extracting regular work from the petitioner, the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s request for regularization at this length of time is wholly

¶125

¶126

arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair and opposed to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶127

The above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench would aptly apply to the facts of the present case also.

¶128

We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.

¶129

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶130

Sd/(K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶131

NC CT: bms

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 30.06.2025 in Application No.4741/2024 allowing the respondent's application seeking a direction to the petitioners to consider her case for regularization as Attender-cum-Sweeper from the date of completion of ten years of service with consequential benefits.¶30
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru ('the Tribunal') · 30.06.2025
Prior proceeding
Respondent, along with similarly placed persons, approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.1366-1371/1999 seeking regularization from the date of appointment; the Tribunal disposed of the applications by order dated 26.07.2007 directing individual representations to the authorities.¶34
Prior proceeding
Respondent's consolidated pay was enhanced by order dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure-A4).¶34
Prior proceeding
Details of the respondent were sought vide Annexure-A6 dated 28.06.2014.¶35
Prior proceeding
The Director, Youth Services and Sports Department, by letter dated 21.02.2015, forwarded the respondent's details and recommended consideration under the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012.¶35
Prior proceeding
No response followed and no order was passed under the 2012 Act.¶37
Prior proceeding
One Rajanna, Assistant Teacher in the same department, approached this Court in W.P.No.22179/2014; by order dated 11.01.2016 this Court directed consideration of his case for regularization, and vide order dated 30.06.2017 (printed as '30.06.20174') his services were regularized.¶39
Prior proceeding
On similar lines, the respondent sought consideration of her case for regularization by representation dated 03.01.2024.¶40
Prior proceeding
As there was no action, the respondent approached the Tribunal in Application No.4741/2024 seeking regularization, stating she had worked as Attender-cum-Sweeper for more than 29 years.¶40
Prior proceeding
The petition was heard and reserved for orders on 04.02.2026; the CAV order was pronounced by S.G. Pandit J.¶25

The State of Karnataka v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmamma Vs Ramesha

Smt Rashmi G N Vs the Managing Director

Sri Sunil Kumar v Vs G Bhuvaneshwari

Dr M S Shyamsundar Vs Union of India

Nisha Gopal Gangal Vs the Member Secreary

Mr Omkarappa K H Vs the State of Karnataka