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.

Sri Ramamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri Ramamurthy Vs the State of KarnatakaSri Ramamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Disposed¶74-77

Sri Ramamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Service law – regularization

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/31926/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of service; Group D employee; Tumkur Urban Development Authority (TUDA); post-retirement representation; delay and laches; belated claim; lump sum compensation ₹4,00,000; pension and pensionary benefits; earned leave encashment 300 days; Article 226 writ petition; Karnataka High Court; endorsement dated 24.04.2025 No. TUDA/Sibbandi/CR/09/2024-25/267; W.P.Nos.3445/3446 of 2016 similarly placed employees; order dated 12.06.2019; Sukhendu Bhattacharjee vs. State of Assam, Civil Appeal No.4514/2025 (cited by counsel); retirement/superannuation 31.05.2022.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to pay ₹4,00,000/- to the petitioner as a lump sum within four weeks from receipt of copy of the order; pending IAs disposed of. Regularization refused and the prayer for pensionary benefits with 18% interest was not granted.

Why is it important?

The petitioner is not entitled to regularization of service, his representation for regularization having been submitted after retirement at a belated stage. ¶67

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second respondent directed to pay ₹4,00,000/- to the petitioner as a lump sum within four weeks from receipt of copy of the order; pending IAs disposed of. Regularization refused and the prayer for pensionary benefits with 18% interest was not granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who served the second respondent authority for over 22 years as a Group D employee and retired on 31.05.2022, is entitled to regularization of his service when his representation for regularization was made only after retirement. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner is not entitled to regularization of service, his representation for regularization having been submitted after retirement at a belated stage.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the 22 years of service rendered by the petitioner, he is entitled to a lump sum amount of ₹4,00,000/-, directed to be paid by the second respondent within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law – regularization – Retired Group D employee of Tumkur Urban Development Authority, appointed on 05.02.2000 and having rendered about 22 years of service, sought regularization and pensionary benefits; his representation was made only after retirement on 31.05.2022 and was rejected by endorsement dated 24.04.2025. Held: representation being post-retirement and belated, petitioner not entitled to regularization; however, in view of the long service rendered, writ petition disposed of directing the second respondent to pay ₹4,00,000/- as lump sum within four weeks. (Ashok S. Kinagi, J.; WP No. 31926 of 2025 (S-R); decided 10.06.2026)

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 31926 OF 2025 (S-R)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETIRED AS GROUP -D EMPLOYEE, TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, TUMKUR-572103 R/AT AREGUJJANNA HALLI, URDIGERE, TUMKUR-572140 PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING ANY SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

…PETITIONER

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELAGUMBA ROAD, TUMAKURU-572103

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) PARK HOUSE ROAD P.B. No.5329 BANGALORE – 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 24/04/2025 BEARING NO. TUDA/SIBBANDI/CR/09/202425/267 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE - P) B) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 24/04/2025 BEARING NO. TUDA/SIBBANDI/CR/09/2024-25/267 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE P) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION AND REGULARIZE HIS SERVICE IN THE CADRE OF GROUP D FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF SERVICE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. C) CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY AND SETTLE PENSION AND PENSIONARY BENEFITS ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18 PERCENT FOR THE BELATED PAYMENT, FROM THE DATE OF DUE TILL ITS REALIZATION, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

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

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the

following prayer:

a) CALL for records of the impugned Endorsement dated 24/04/2025 bearing No. TUDA/Sibbandi/CR/09/2024-25/267 issued by Respondent No.2 (ANNEXURE - P);

b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING the impugned Endorsement dated 24/04/2025 bearing No. TUDA/Sibbandi/CR/09/2024-25/267 issued by Respondent No.2 (ANNEXURE P) and CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization and regularize his service in the cadre of Group D from the date of completion of 10 years of service, in the interest of Justice and equity.

c) CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to pay and settle pension and pensionary benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% for the belated payment, from the date of due till its realization, in favour of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity;

2. The petitioner was appointed in the second

respondent authority as Group D employee through employment exchange on 05.02.2000 and reported to the duty on 07.02.2000. The first respondent Government approved creation of post of Group D in the second respondent authority for 2 years. The first respondent has

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025

HC-KAR

passed an order continuing the service of the petitioner as a Group- D employee by extending the creation of post from time to time since the post was essential for effective administration of the second respondent authority. The first respondent extended the approval for creation of post on 18.07.2017 and 17.12.2018 respectively.

3. The petitioner Sri. Timmaraju T and Smt. Sarvamangala D.L were appointed as driver and Group D respectively, in the second respondent authority on 05.02.2000. They approached this Court in W.P.Nos.34453446 of 2016 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the respondents to take decision with regard to the regularization of their services within an outer limit of 10 weeks vide order dated 12.06.2019. The service of the petitioner was extended by the first respondent by approving the post held by the petitioner. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025

HC-KAR

respondent for regularization of service and for earned leave encashment for a period of 300 days. The respondent issued an endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularisation. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The second respondent filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioner has submitted a representation for regularisation of service after retirement. It is contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It is also contended that the similarly placed employees filed a writ petition before this court. The said petitioners therein have submitted a representation when they were in service. Admittedly, the petitioner is out of service. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition against respondent No.2.

5. Respondent No.1 has not filed a statement of

objections.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025

HC-KAR

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has worked in the second respondent authority for more than 22 years. The services of the petitioner is entitled to be regularized. He submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation for regularization of service of the petitioner. But the respondents have rejected the representation.

8. To buttress his arguments he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others vs. State of Assam and others reported in Civil Appeal No.4514/2025 disposed of on 21.05.2026. Further, he also submits that in case if the petitioner is not entitle for regularization, a direction be issued to the second respondent to pay a lum sum amount to the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025

HC-KAR

9 . Per contra , learned counsel for second

respondent submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is belated stage and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. He also submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation after retirement from service. The second respondent has rightly issued an endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.

10. Learned Additional Government Advocate

adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the second respondent.

11. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

12. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was in service was appointed as Group-D employee in the second respondent about 22 years back and he has rendered service for 22 years in the second respondent authority. Similarly placed employees approached this

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025

HC-KAR

Court in W.P.No.3445/3446-2016. The Co-ordinate bench vide order dated 12.06.2019 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to continue to pay the salary of the petitioner without discontinuing till the State of Karnataka takes appropriate decision.

13. Learned Additional Government Advocate

submits that the respondents have not regularized the service of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has rendered service for more than 22 years. The petitioner has made a representation for regularization of service after retirement. The representation submitted by the petitioner was at a belated stage. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the regularization of service. However, considering the service rendered by the petitioner for 22 years, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a lump sum amount of ₹4,00,000/-.

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28008 WP No. 31926 of 2025

HC-KAR

14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the

case, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is disposed of

directing the second respondent to

pay ₹4,00,000/- to the petitioner as

a lump sum amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

ii. Pending IA/s, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

SKS

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner, who served the second respondent authority for over 22 years as a Group D employee and retired on 31.05.2022, is entitled to regularization of his service when his representation for regularization was made only after retirement.¶67
The court held
The petitioner is not entitled to regularization of service, his representation for regularization having been submitted after retirement at a belated stage.ratio¶67
2.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of pension and pensionary benefits (with interest for belated payment) or other monetary relief in lieu of regularization.medium confidence¶33
The court held
Considering the 22 years of service rendered by the petitioner, he is entitled to a lump sum amount of ₹4,00,000/-, directed to be paid by the second respondent within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶67

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others vs. State of Assam and othersReferred¶53
Civil Appeal No.4514/2025

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶22

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Endorsement No. TUDA/Sibbandi/CR/09/2024-25/267 dated 24/04/2025 issued by Respondent No.2 (TUDA) rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization of service.¶31
Respondent No.2 – Tumkur Urban Development Authority · 24/04/2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed as Group D employee in the second respondent authority through employment exchange on 05.02.2000 and reported to duty on 07.02.2000.¶35
Prior proceeding
First respondent approved creation of the Group D post (initially for 2 years) and extended the approval from time to time, including on 18.07.2017 and 17.12.2018.¶38
Prior proceeding
Similarly placed employees (Sri. Timmaraju T and Smt. Sarvamangala D.L) filed W.P.Nos.3445/3446 of 2016, disposed of on 12.06.2019 directing respondents to take a decision on regularization of their services within an outer limit of 10 weeks.¶39
Prior proceeding
By order dated 12.06.2019 in W.P.No.3445/3446-2016, the Co-ordinate bench directed respondents to continue paying salary without discontinuance until the State took an appropriate decision.¶65
Prior proceeding
Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022.¶39
Prior proceeding
After retirement, petitioner represented for regularization of service and encashment of 300 days' earned leave; the second respondent issued an endorsement rejecting the regularization request, leading to this writ petition.¶43

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SRI RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATAPPA¶10
SATISH K.
respondent
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY¶15
G. RAMESH NAIK
respondent
TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER¶16
G. RAMESH NAIK, T.P. VIVEKANANDA
respondent
THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)¶19
G. RAMESH NAIK

Coram

AI extract

ASHOK S.KINAGIauthor¶24

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 10 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 24 Oct 2025
Case no.: WP/31926/2025
CNR: KAHC010691702025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Ashok S.kinagi
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Writ Petition (S-R)

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. Venkataiah. C. Vs the Principal Secretary
9 Jun 2026
Sri K Vasudeva Vs Bengaluru Co. Operative Milk Union Limited
9 Jun 2026
Sri. Preetham S P Vs the State of Karnataka
9 Jun 2026
Arvind Rajarajm Patil Vs Canara Bank
10 Jun 2026
Sri Sadashivaiah Y M Vs State of Karnataka
10 Jun 2026
Savitha R Vs the State of Karnataka
10 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri Ramamurthy v. the State of Karnataka, WP/31926/2025 (KA), decided on 10 June 2026.

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

Cases cited1

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others vs. State of Assam and othersReferred¶53

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history7

Endorsement No. TUDA/Sibbandi/CR/09/2024-25/267 dated 24/04/2025 issued by Respondent No.2 (TUDA) rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization of service.Respondent No.2 – Tumkur Urban Development Authority · 24/04/2025
Petitioner appointed as Group D employee in the second respondent authority through employment exchange on 05.02.2000 and reported to duty on 07.02.2000.
First respondent approved creation of the Group D post (initially for 2 years) and extended the approval from time to time, including on 18.07.2017 and 17.12.2018.

View full history

Bench / Coram

ASHOK S.KINAGI

Parties & counsel