State challenged a Tribunal order directing continuation of a deceased sweeper in a pensionable post for pensionary benefits to his widow. The court found identical contentions already rejected in earlier writ petitions, with the State's SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court, and rejected the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:25509-DB WP No. 26825 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.26825 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MYSORE DISTRICT, HYDER ALI ROAD, JALAPURI (OPP. TO CHAMUNDI) VIHAR STADIUM, MYSORE - 570 019.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S., AGA)
HC-KAR
AND:
SMT. THUMBALAMMA W/O LATE SRI. GURURAJ, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.104, 11TH CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, MYSURU - 570 007. LEGAL HEIR AND WIFE OF:
SRI. GURURAJA, WAS WORKING AS A FULL TIME SWEEPER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 019
(DIED WHILE IN SERVICE ON 28.11.2005)
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. NAVEEN KUMAR FOR SRI.RAJASHEKAR P.,ADVOCATES (VC))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 IN APPLICATION No.4718 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B) AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION FOR QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 IN APPLICATION No. 4718 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The authorities-Home Department are before this
Court questioning the Order dated 19.04.2023 in Application No.4718/2022, wherein the Tribunal taking note of the orders passed in respect of similarly situated Sweepers directed the petitioners herein to continue the service of the respondent’s husband as a pensionable post from the date of his appointment till the date of his death to enable legal heirs to get pensionary benefits.
2. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.A.S.Harisha for petitioner/State as well as learned
counsel Sri.R.Naveen Kumar for respondent.
3. Perused the entire petition papers.
HC-KAR
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate would
contend that the husband of the respondent was appointed as Sweeper on contingency payment and the duty hours of the respondent-husband was only between 7.00 a.m to 10.00 a.m, and not for the whole day. Therefore, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Tribunal could not have directed continuation of husband of the respondent in a pensionable post so as to draw pension by the respondent.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that when respondent/husband was not working in a sanctioned post and when he was working part time, he was not entitled for any regularization from the State. Thus, he would pray for allowing the petition.
6. Learned counsel Sri.Praveen Kumar for respondent would submit that all the contentions raised by the State in the present writ petition are considered by this Court in
HC-KAR
earlier writ petitions relating to similarly situated Sweepers and the said order was also taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the SLP of the petitioner/State. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the contentions canvassed by the State are considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.52310/2018 dated 20.12.2018 and the State’s writ petition was rejected. Against the said order, SLP was filed by the State in SLP No.21311/2020 and the said SLP was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Earlier co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.39280/2016
and 43047-43048/2016 (S-KAT) dated 09.08.2016 considered similar contention and Para Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the said order reads as follows:
3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates appearing on both the sides, it appears that similar orders passed by the Tribunal in
HC-KAR
respect of applicants working as Sweepers came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No.41225/2015 and allied matters, wherein this Court vide order dated 01.06.2016, has not interfered with the orders passed by the Tribunal and the said petitions were dismissed.
4. We may record that this Court in the above referred order dated 01.06.2016 has observed thus:
“ As in all these petitions, common order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity) is challenged, they are considered simultaneously.
2. These petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.08.2013 and 12.06.2015 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has directed the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants and grant all further consequential benefits.
3. We have heard Mr.H.T.Narendra Prasad, learned AGA for the petitioners and Smt.Revathy Adinath Narde, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P. No.41225/2015 c/w W.P.Nos.45502 and 45932-935/2015.
4. As such, if the order of the Tribunal is considered, it has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in
HC-KAR
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported at 2006 (4) SCC 1 read with the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M.L.Kesari and Others reported at (2010) 9 SCC 247 , whereby the direction was issued by the Apex Court to consider as one time measure to all those employees who were working on temporary basis but completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006 for the purpose of regularization.
5. However, the learned AGA appearing for the petitioners contended that the respondents were paid out of contingency fund and therefore no regular posts were available at the relevant point of time when they were appointed. Such being a distinguishing circumstance, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) read with the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.L.Kesari (supra), would not be applicable.
6. When we put a query to the learned AGA to show any material on the basis of which the contention can be supported that the posts were not available and the respondents were to be paid from contingency fund, he is unable to show any contemporaneous
HC-KAR
record neither produced before the Tribunal or before this Court.
7. Only a lame attempt was made by the learned AGA by relying upon the order dated 20.10.1981 (copy whereof is produced at Annexure ‘A1’) to show that there were no regular posts and the payments were to be made from Contingency Fund.
8. In our view, even if the document at Annexure ‘A1’ dated 20.10.1981 is considered, there is no reference whatsoever to posts\ temporarily created nor to the disbursement of the salary from the contingency fund. On the contrary, the perusal of the order shows that when the respondents were appointed, they were made entitled to the regular pay scale of Rs.250-400 per month. Merely because the word used is “temporarily”, it cannot be read to dilute the effect of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). On the contrary, the decision of the Apex Court in case of Uma Devi (supra), is essentially with the purpose that if the regular scales were being paid and regular posts were available, merely because the appointments were given on temporary basis should not be a ground to deprive those employees of their legitimate pensionary and other benefits if they have continued in service for a period of ten years on 10.04.2006 on temporary basis. Hence, the contention cannot be accepted.
NC: 2026:KHC:25509-DB WP No. 26825 of 2023
HC-KAR
9. In view of the above, read with the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, we do not find any case made out for interference. Hence, all the petitions are dismissed.”
5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners is not in a position to show any distinguishing circumstance and hence, the present petitions in view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, deserve to be dismissed. The petitions are dismissed accordingly.
7. In view of the earlier order passed by co-ordinate
Bench, we do not propose to re-examine the contentions
once again. We do not find any merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected.
SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
SD/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
BNV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a sweeper appointed on contingency payment for limited hours could be directed to be continued in a pensionable post so his legal heir could draw pension.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No.52310/2018 dated 20.12.2018Relied on¶6
SLP No.21311/2020Referred¶6
Writ Petition No.39280/2016 and 43047-43048/2016 (S-KAT) dated 09.08.2016Relied on¶6
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and OthersReferred
2006 (4) SCC 1 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M.L.Kesari and OthersReferred
(2010) 9 SCC 247 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Karnataka represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department
The Director General & Inspector General of Police
The Superintendent of Police, Mysore District
The Accountant General in Karnataka (A&E)
Smt. Thumbalamma (legal heir and wife of late Sri. Gururaja)
S.G.Pandit
K.Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
