Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt Chandrakala v Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt Chandrakala v Vs the Chief CommissionerSmt Chandrakala v. Vs the Chief Commissioner

Disposed¶41

Smt Chandrakala v. Vs the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2026WP/15805/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC-KAR | WP No. 15805 of 2026 (S-RES) | NC: 2026:KHC:32817 | Justice Ashok S.Kinagi | Disposed of. Subject: regularisation of service upon completion of 10 years; mandamus to consider representation Annexure 'F' dated 25.03.2026; salary fixation and arrears as permanent employee; counting of service for pension and terminal benefits; five-month timeline to pass order in accordance with law. Petitioner: Smt Chandrakala V (Adv. Manjunatha B V.). Respondents: R1 Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority (Adv. M A Subramani); R2 Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka (Adv. Mamatha Shetty). Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Merits of regularisation not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's representation vide Annexure 'F' and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Why is it important?

On the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1, respondent No.1 was directed to consider the petitioner's representation vide Annexure 'F' and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶41

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's representation vide Annexure 'F' and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure 'F') seeking regularisation of service and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. +1 more

Court's answer

On the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1, respondent No.1 was directed to consider the petitioner's representation vide Annexure 'F' and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above direction, the writ petition was disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 15805 of 2026 (S-RES), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Smt Chandrakala V (aged about 47 years), was disposed of by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok S.Kinagi of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on 01.07.2026. The petitioner sought mandamus for regularisation of her service from the date she completed 10 years of service, salary fixation and arrears as obtaining to a permanent employee, and counting of service for pension and terminal benefits. Her representation dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure 'F') addressed to respondent No.1, the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority, had not been considered. Without adjudicating the merits of those claims, and acting on the submission of counsel for respondent No.1, the Court directed respondent No.1 to consider the representation vide Annexure 'F' and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32817 WP No. 15805 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 15805 OF 2026 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT CHANDRAKALA V AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. NANJUNDEGOWDA H., R/AT. NO. 131, PANTHARAPALYA, (NAYANDAHALLI), BENGALURU-560039.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MAMATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. M A SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32817 WP No. 15805 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM THAT DAY ON WHICH THE PETITIONER COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE. B) 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. C) THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH AND SHALL BE COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF PENSION AND ALL OTHER INCIDENTAL TERMINAL BENEFITS. D) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OF DIRECTIONS ON THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS PETITION.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“a. issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from that day on which the petitioner completed 10 years of service.

b) petitioner is entitled to fixation of their salaries as such regularization

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32817 WP No. 15805 of 2026

HC-KAR

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.

c) the service rendered by the petitioner through and shall be counted for the purpose of determination of pension and all other incidental terminal benefits.

d) issue any other writ, order of directions on this Hon’ble court may deem fit to grant in this circumstances of the case, including the cost of this petition.

e) grant such other relief or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

The petitioner has submitted a representation on 25.03.2026 requesting respondent No.1 for

regularization of her service, vide Annexure ‘F’, however, respondent No.1 has not yet considered the said representation. Hence, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation at Annexure ‘F’.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32817 WP No. 15805 of 2026

HC-KAR

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1

submits that if a reasonable time is granted, respondent No.1 will consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure “F” and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure “F” and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

RK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether respondent No.1 should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure 'F') seeking regularisation of service and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.¶36
The court held
On the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1, respondent No.1 was directed to consider the petitioner's representation vide Annexure 'F' and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶41
2.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of service from the date she completed 10 years of service, with salary fixation, arrears of salary, and counting of service for pension and other incidental terminal benefits.medium confidence¶27

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226, 227¶22

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.03.2026 to respondent No.1 seeking regularisation of her service (Annexure 'F').¶35
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 had not considered the representation; the petitioner prayed for a mandamus directing its consideration.¶36

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SMT CHANDRAKALA V¶10
Manjunatha B V.
respondent
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY¶15
M A Subramani
respondent
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA¶16
Mamatha Shetty

Coram

AI extract

ASHOK S.KINAGIauthor¶24

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 1 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 20 May 2026
Case no.: WP/15805/2026
CNR: KAHC010324342026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Ashok S.kinagi
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: WRIT PETITION (S-RES)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ashok S.kinagi

Sri Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka
30 Jun 2026
Dr Shivaji Jyothi Vs the State of Karnataka
30 Jun 2026
C Narayani Vs the State of Karnataka
30 Jun 2026
Dr K Abhay Kumar Vs University of Mangalore
1 Jul 2026
Sri D S Prathap Vs State of Karnataka
1 Jul 2026
Ms. Pooja Yadav Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health and Sciences
1 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt Chandrakala v. Vs the Chief Commissioner, WP/15805/2026 (KA), decided on 1 July 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226, 227

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.03.2026 to respondent No.1 seeking regularisation of her service (Annexure 'F').
Respondent No.1 had not considered the representation; the petitioner prayed for a mandamus directing its consideration.

View full history

Bench / Coram

ASHOK S.KINAGI

Parties & counsel