Smt Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 23.9.2013 OF THE R-2 ANNEXURE-U. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF LATE SRI.K.C.SOMASHEKAR AS DONE IN THE CASE OF SRI.RUDRAPPA KAMATAR, SRI.H.T.SRINIVAS AND SRI.T.SHIVANNA IN G.O DTD 17.6.2012 AS AT ANNEXURE-O RETROSPECTIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE AND RELEASE ALL PENSIONARY BENEFITS OF LATE SRI.K.C.SOMASHEKARA AND GRANT FAMILY PENSION TO THE P-1 WITH 12 p.a. AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:28005 WP No. 19407 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-U and sought for mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of late Sri K.M.Somashekar as done in the case of Sri Rudrappa Kamatar, Sri H.T.Srinivas and Sri T.Shivanna vide G.O. bearing No.FEE 56 EPC 2012 Bangalore dated 17.06.2012 at Annexure-O.

¶33

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these writ petition are as follows:

¶34

The husband of petitioner No.1 namely Sri K.M.Somashekar was initially appointed as a driver on 29.06.1991 at the Regional Office of respondent No.2 on a contract basis against the sanctioned post initially for a period of 6 months and same was extended from time to time and issued an order granting regular pay scale to late K.M.Somashekar from the date of appointment on contract basis vide Official Memorandum dated 15.04.1999.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28005 WP No. 19407 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

K.M.Somashekar during his lifetime has submitted

¶38

representations to respondent No.2 through respondent No.3 on 17.06.1999 and 28.12.2002 for seeking regularization of his service. He has also submitted two more representations on 04.01.2007 to respondent No.3.

¶39

Respondent No.2 issued an order dated 06.02.2008 relieving the service of K.M.Somashekar from the post of driver. K.M.Somashekar, aggrieved by the relieving order, preferred the writ petition in W.P.No.3647/2008 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed and preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.843/2008. The writ appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 14.10.2009 and directed the respondents to reinstate K.M.Somashekar into service with all consequential benefits within 4 weeks. Respondent No.2 issued an official memorandum dated 04.01.2010 by reinstating the service of K.M.Somashekar. Meanwhile, K.M.Somashekar passed away on 28.06.2010 at Mysore. After the demise of K.M.Somashekar, the petitioners have submitted a representation on 30.10.2010 to respondent

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28005 WP No. 19407 of 2019

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

No.3 seeking various benefits including compassionate appointment. It is contended that the services of similarly placed employees were regularized. It is contended that the service of K.M.Somashekar was also entitled for regularization of services. Thus, there is a discrimination and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition.

¶43

3. The respondents despite granting sufficient

¶44

opportunity, has not filed the statement of objections.

¶45

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶46

the petitioners and also learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶47

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of petitioner No.1 was initially appointed on a contract basis as a driver on 29.06.1991 and he was continued in service till his death. He submits that K.M.Somashekar passed away on 28.06.2010. During his lifetime, he has submitted an application for regularization

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28005 WP No. 19407 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

of his service. The respondents did not consider the representations submitted by the petitioners also. He submits that similarly placed employees services were regularized by the respondents. He submits that service of K.M.Somashekar is also entitled for regularization of service. The respondents have issued an endorsement denying the regularization of service. Thus, the endorsement issued by the respondents is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. B ANERJEE V S . U NION O F I NDIA A ND O RS . reported in AIR 1990 SC 285 . Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶51

6. Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate submits the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent is just and proper and do not call for any interference with the hands of this Court. Hence, on this ground, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28005 WP No. 19407 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

7. Perused the records and considered the

¶55

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶56

8. It is an undisputed fact that K.M.Somashekar was appointed as a driver on 29.06.1991 and he was given a salary of Rs.1,402/- in the pay scale of Rs.8701,600/- with all admissible allowances like basic pay, DA, HRA, special allowances, washing allowances etc., and subsequently, his service was extended from time to time. The service of K.M.Somashekar was terminated by respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.02.2008. Then, the order of relieve was issued to K.M.Somashekar on 06.02.2008. K.M.Somashekar, aggrieved by the relieving order dated 06.02.2008, preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.3647/2008. The writ Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 04.04.2008. K.M.Somashekar, aggrieved by the order passed in the above writ petition, preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.843/2008. The said writ appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 14.10.2009 and set aside the relieving order and directed the

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28005 WP No. 19407 of 2019

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

respondents to reinstate K.M.Somashekar into service with all consequential benefits. Pursuant to the order passed in the aforesaid writ appeal, respondent No.2 issued official memorandum dated 04.01.2010 by reinstating K.M.Somashekar into service. K.M.Somashekar passed away on 28.06.2010. K.M.Somashekar during his lifetime has also submitted representations dated 17.06.1999 and 28.12.2002 requesting respondent No.2 to regularize his service. Respondent No.2 has not passed any orders on the representations submitted by K.M.Somashekar during his lifetime. After his demise on 28.06.2010, the petitioners have submitted an application for regularization of service of K.M.Somashekar. The similarly placed employees namely Sri Rudrappa Kamatar, Sri H.T.Srinivas and Sri T.Shivanna there services were regularized vide G.O.bearing No.FEE 56 EPC 2012 dated 17.06.2012 as per Annexure-O retrospectively with effect from the date they completed 10 years of service. K.M.Somashekar stands on the same footing.

¶60

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:28005 WP No. 19407 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

K.M.Somashekar also entitled for the regularization of service in view of the representations submitted by him during his lifetime dated 17.06.1999 and 28.12.2002. Admittedly, K.M.Somashekar has completed 10 years of service without any interruption. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S UKHENDU B HATTACHARJEE AND O RS . V S . THE S TATE OF

¶63

A SSAM AND O RS . in C IVIL A PPEAL N O .4514/2025 para No.76, which reads as under:

¶64

“76. What emerges from the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions is that the State cannot rely upon the mere form of engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment to employees who have served it for long years. The consistent thread running through these judgments is that Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the employees have been discharging essential and recurring functions of the State. The Court has repeatedly emphasised that the distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept in view, that long and continuous service is a relevant consideration, and that the State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act with fairness, consistency and reasonableness. The practice of

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:28005 WP No. 19407 of 2019

¶66

10 -

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

retaining employees for decades under deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously extracting regular work integral to the administration, has been disapproved consistently.”

¶69

9. The endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is

¶70

against the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

¶71

in case of S UKHENDU B HATTACHARJEE (Supra). In view of

¶72

the mandate laid down, the impugned endorsement is

¶73

liable to be set aside.

¶74

10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶75

pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶78

ii. The impugned endorsement vide Annexure-U passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶79

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the case of K.M.Somashekar for regularization of service in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court S UKHENDU

¶80

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:28005 WP No. 19407 of 2019

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

B HATTACHARJEE (Supra) within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

¶83

iv. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

¶84

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶85

SSB

Smt Sharadamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sharadamma v. the 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

Sri. Venkataiah. C. Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri K Vasudeva Vs Bengaluru Co. Operative Milk Union Limited

Sri. Preetham S P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Arvind Rajarajm Patil Vs Canara Bank

Sri Sadashivaiah Y M Vs State of Karnataka