Smt. v S Kakoli Vs the Director

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECITNG THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL SENT BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC-D:248 WP No. 100088 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

¶27

notice for respondents Nos.1 and 2.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶29

learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶30

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the proposal dated 14.03.2023 sent by respondent No.3, as the earlier proposals sent on 11.05.2017 and 12.09.2017 have remained unconsidered despite specific directions issued by this Court.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite an order being passed in W.P.No.107441/2018, filed by the petitioner, directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the proposal dated 11.05.2017 and 12.09.2017 sent by respondent No.3 within a time frame manner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not yet considered the same, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court again in a second round of litigation.

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC-D:248 WP No. 100088 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Bill Collector on daily wages from 20.12.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 had directed respondent No.3 to extend the service benefits on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” considering the fact that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days with respondent No.3. The petitioner submitted representation seeking such benefits and regularization of service. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.3 forwarded proposals to respondent No.2 dated 11.05.2017 and 12.09.2017. Nonconsideration of the said proposals made the petitioner approach this Court earlier in W.P.No.107441/2018, wherein respondents Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the proposals within stipulated time. Even, thereafter no action was taken.

¶36

Subsequently, respondent No.3 sent a fresh proposal dated 14.03.2023 to respondents Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner’s grievance is that even this proposal has not

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC-D:248 WP No. 100088 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

been considered till date, thereby compelling the petitioner to initiate the present round of litigation.

¶41

The conduct of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in not considering the proposals despite clear judicial direction, reflects a failure to discharge the statutory and administrative obligation cast upon them. Such inaction has resulted in unnecessary litigation and cannot be countenanced by this Court.

¶42

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that appropriate directions are to be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to ensure compliance coupled with imposition of costs for the prolonged and unexplained inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶43

Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondents Nos.1 and 2 to consider the proposal

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC-D:248 WP No. 100088 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

sent by respondent No.3 dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure-D) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

ii. For non-consideration of the earlier proposals sent by respondent No.3 on 11.05.2017 and 12.09.2017, which has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court, cost of ₹20,000 are imposed on respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally payable to the petitioner within a period of two weeks and file an acknowledgment to that effect before this Court.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶53

AT

¶54

Ct:VH / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt. v. S Kakoli v the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v. S Kakoli v the Director

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

Shri. Abhay Krishnarao Yalagi Vs the Commissioner

Chaitra Shambanna Vaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

Meghal D/O Jyotin Gandhi Vs Deputy Commissioner

Syamilaya S/O Tayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxmi Vs Technical

Smt Godavari W/O. Virupakshi Baat Vs Siddu Savadi