Sri.R. Janardhana Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri.R. Janardhana Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-Z) quashed; respondents directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in light of the Apex Court judgments in Dharam Singh (2025 INSC 998), Jaggo (2024 SCC Online SC 3826), Shripal (2025 SCC Online SC 221) and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (Civil Appeal No.4514/2025) and pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order; pending IA(s) disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned endorsement dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure-Z) issued by Respondent No.2 declining regularisation of the petitioners' services is liable to be quashed. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were appointed as Bill Collectors on 16.09.1989, 12.07.1995 and 16.08.1994 under the respective Grama Panchayaths, which were included in the Tumkuru Municipal Council, and that the petitioners have discharged their duty for more than 10-15 years.

Key takeaways

The objection that the petitioners' appointments were not against sanctioned posts stands answered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee; the impugned endorsement, being contrary to the mandate laid down by the Apex Court in Dharam Singh, Jaggo, Shripal and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee, is liable to be set aside.ratio¶151

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Regularisation - Bill Collectors appointed by Gram/Mandal Panchayats (16.09.1989, 16.08.1994, 12.07.1995) later included in Tumkuru City Municipal Council - endorsement dated 06.11.2023 of Director of Municipal Administration (R-2) declining regularisation on grounds of appointments being contractual/not against sanctioned posts and non-completion of 10 years - held unsustainable. Recommendations for regularisation by the Deputy Commissioner (R-3) and the Commissioner (R-4) noted; earlier rounds before the Court (WP Nos. 42085-42089 of 2011; WP No.7083 of 2019) noted. Following and applying Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 998), Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 SCC Online SC 221) and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam (Civil Appeal No.4514/2025, disposed of on 21.05.2026), the Court held the impugned endorsement contrary to the mandate of the Apex Court, quashed it, and directed reconsideration in light of those judgments and passing of appropriate orders within one month. (Ashok S. Kinagi, J.)

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 424 OF 2024 (S-REG)

BETWEEN:

SRI. R. JANARDHANA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGAPPA BILL COLLECTOR, TUMAKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE TUMAKURU-572101

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

SRI MAHADEV AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE CHINNAIAH BILL COLLECTOR, TUMAKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE TUMAKURU-572101

SRI SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SIDDA HUCHAIAH BILL COLLECTOR, TUMAKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE TUMAKURU-572101

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9^TH FLOOR, V V TOWER DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKURU DISTRICT TUMKURU-572101

THE COMMISSIONER TUMKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE TUMKUR-572101

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. SAKSHI M KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. 488324/DMA/EST2/DAWE/34/2021/5498 DATED 06/11/2023 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-Z TO THE WP. b) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAVE COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE OFFICE OF THE R4 AND EXTEND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY BENEFITS, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND c) DIRECTING TO THE R1 AND 2 TO MERGE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER IN TUMKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE THE DATE ON WHICH THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS MERGED IN TUMKURU MUNICIPAL COUNCIL FROM MANDAL PANCHAYATH HAS RECOMMENDED BY THE R3 VIDE LETTER BEARING NO. DUDC/SIBBANDI/CR/109/2022-23 DATED 14/07/2022 VIDE

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

3 -

HC-KAR

ANNEXURE-Y2, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking

following prayer:

a) ISSUE a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No.488324/DMA/EST2/DAWE/34/2021/5498 dated 6.11.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent vide ANNEXURE-Z to the writ petition, under the facts and circumstances of the case;

b) ISSUE a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners from the date on which the petitioners have completed 10 years of service in the office of the 4th Respondent and extend all other consequential monetary benefits, under the facts and circumstances of the case; and

c) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing to the Respondent No.1 and 2 to merge the service of the petitioner in Tumkuru Mahanagara Palike the date on which the service of the Petitioners merged in Tumkuru Muncipal Council from Mandal Panchayath has recommended by the 3rd Respondent vide Letter bearing No.DUDC/SIBBANDI/CR/109/2022-23 dated 14-07-

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

2022 vide Annexure-Y2 under the facts and circumstance of the case.

d) ISSUE any other appropriate writ, order or orders or direction as this Hon'ble court may deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

Petitioner No.1 was appointed as a Bill Collector by Kesaramadu Gram Panchayat of Tumkuru taluk under a resolution dated 16.09.1989. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Bill collector by Satyamangala Mandal Panchayat under a resolution dated 12.07.1995. Petitioner No.3 was appointed as a Bill collector by Melekote Mandal Panchayat under a resolution dated 16.08.1994.

2.1 Respondent No.1 vide notification dated 10.10.1995 has brought 22 villages of Tumkuru, Melekote, Kyatasandra, Heggere Gram Panchayat including the aforesaid Mandal Panchayat under the Tumkuru City Municipal Council and formed 35 wards. The fifth respondent addressed a communication to respondent

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

No.3 by giving the names of 53 employees who are working in the Mandal Panchayath as Group C and Group D employees including the petitioners on 19.12.1996. Respondent No.4 vide communication dated 27.01.2007 addressed to respondent No.3 with his recommendation

for regularisation of Group C and Group D employees including the petitioners. Respondent No.4 has regularised the services of 43 Group D employees and extended the pay scale attached to the said post. This court in WP No. 42085-42089 of 2011 issued a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in accordance with law.

2.2 Respondent No.5 has recommended the case of

the petitioners for regularisation. Once again recommendation by the fifth respondent to his higher officers. The proceedings of the State level Committee regarding regularisation of the services of daily wage employees, that the case of the petitioners has been turned down on the ground that the petitioners were not

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

working as against the sanctioned post. The petitioners approached this court in WP No.7083 of 2019 challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.02.2017. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 30.03.2023 and quashed the order of proceedings of respondent No.5 and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the recommendation made by respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of their services without considering the recommendation made by respondent No.5. Hence, the petitioners aggrieved by the impugned endorsement filed this writ petition.

3. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and it is contended that the resolution of Mandal Panchayat, if any, permitting continuation of a daily wages service do not confer any right of regularisation. The appointment orders were purely

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

contractual and not against any sanctioned vacant post. It is also contended that the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioners, and learned counsel for the Additional Government Advocate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are working as Bill collectors in the respective Gram Panchayath and all Gram Panchayath were included under the Tumkuru City Municipal Council and formed 35 wards. The petitioner No.1 was working since from 1989, petitioner No.2 from 1995 and petitioner No.3 from 1994. The petitioners have completed work for more than 10 years and their services are required to be regularised. He submits that the respondents have regularised the services of similarly placed petitioners and the respondents have not regularised the services of the petitioners. Thus, he submits that the impugned

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

endorsement issued by the respondents is contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P reported in 2025 INSC 998 , J aggo V. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 , Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others Vs. The State of Assam and others reported in Civil Appeal No.4514/2025 disposed of on 21.05.2026. Hence, he submits that in view of the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred supra, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioners have not worked for more than 10 years, hence, they are not entitled for regularization. He also submits that the petitioners were not appointed against the sanctioned post. Hence, on these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

7. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel to the parties.

8. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner No.1 was appointed as a Bill collector on 16.09.1989 by Kesaramadu Grama Panchayath, petitioner No.2 was appointed on 12.07.1995 and petitioner No.3 was appointed on 16.08.1994 under the respective Grama Panchayaths. The Grama Panchayat were included in the Tumkuru Municipal Council and formed 35 wards. The petitioners have discharged their duty for more than 10-15 years. The fifth respondent has made recommendation to the respondent No.3 by giving the names of 53 employees who are working in the Mandal Panchayaths as Group C and Group D employees including the petitioners on 19.12.1996. Respondent No.4 has also written a letter to respondent No.3 with his recommendation for regularisation of Group C employees including the petitioners. Despite recommendation made by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

respondent No.5 has not passed any order for regularization.

9. Some of the employees approached this court in WP Nos. 42085 and 42089 of 2011. This court vide order dated 30.03.2023, disposed of the writ petition directing the fifth respondent therein to reconsider the issue in terms of the observation made i.e., recommendation made by respondent No. 4 therein by the letter dated 29.12.2016 vide Annexure-W within outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of service of the order. Respondent No.5 has passed the impugned order declining to regularize the services of the petitioner on the ground that they have not worked for more than 10 years and the resolution does not confer any right to seek for regularisation.

10. Admittedly, respondents No.3 and 4 have recommended for regularization of service of the petitioners and the petitioners have produced the copy of the resolution passed by the respective Mandal

11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

Panchayath to establish their appointments in 1989, 19941995. In order to consider the case on hand, with regard to the regularization, th e Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Jaggo V. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online

SC 3826 has held in para Nos.7 and 8, which reads as

follows:

" 7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous service, the nature of their work, and the lack of any backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had functioned without any break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees, and had been assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent's offices. The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's decision and the submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners did not

12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant housekeeping and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants have approached this Court by way of these appeals.

On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have been advanced before us:

(i) Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants emphasise their long, uninterrupted service spanning well over a decade-and in some instances, exceeding two decades. They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the respondent's offices.

(ii) Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities-such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance taskswere not casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional work environment, effectively aligning with roles typically associated with regular posts.

13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

(iii) Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the appellants were never issued any warning or adverse remarks. They highlight that their work was consistently satisfactory, and there was no indication from the respondents that their performance was not satisfactory or required improvement.

(iv) Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Guidelines: The appellants assert that their appointments were not "illegal" but at most "irregular." Drawing on the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, they submit that longserving employees in irregular appointments-who fulfil essential, sanctioned functions-are entitled to consideration for regularization.

(v) Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar engagements have been regularized. They contend that denying them the same benefit, despite their longer service and crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.

(vi) Irrelevance of Educational

Qualifications: The appellants reject the respondents' reliance on formal educational requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced earlier and that the nature of their work does not inherently demand formal schooling. They argue that retrospectively imposing such qualifications

14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

is unjustified given their proven capability over many years.

(vii) Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their long, integral service. They maintain that fairness, equity, and established judicial principles call for their regularization rather than abrupt termination.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in

the case of Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam,

Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 , has

held at paragraphs 15 , which reads as follows :

"15. It is manifest that the appellant workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so, allows an adverse influence under the wellestablished labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavours perpetual Daily wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year

15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contract agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite temporary employment practice as done by the recent judgment of this Court in Jaggo vs union of India reported in 2024 INSC 1034 following paragraphs:

"22.The pervasive misuse of the temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader Systematic issue that adversely affects the worker's right and job security. In the private sector, rise of gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by the lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labor standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principle of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When a public sector entity engage in the misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

x x x

25. It is a disconcerting reality that the temporary employees, particularly in

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

16 -

HC-KAR

the government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long term obligations owned to employees. This practice manifests in several ways:

Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from

17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sukhendu

Bhattacharjee and others vs. State of Assam and

18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

others disposed of on 21.05.2026, held that

regularisation cannot be denied because solely initial appointment was not against the sanctioned post and

has held at paragraphs 76 and 77, which reads as follows :

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 retaining

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

19 -

HC-KAR

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

77. Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that engaging workers on muster rolls was a consistently employed policy of the State which continued for prolonged period of time. The appellants were not engaged for sporadic or seasonal purposes but were taken on muster rolls and have rendered continuous service for decades in departments performing regular governmental functions. The State itself acknowledged the magnitude of the issue and framed a Cabinet to deny policy to regularize similarly situated workers, acting upon it in respect of nearly 30,000 employees. In such circumstances, consideration to the fraction of remaining eligible workers including the appellants, by taking shelter under a rigid reading of Umadevi (supra) would defeat the very principles of fairness and nonarbitrariness that this Court has consistently upheld.

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

13. The learned Additional Government Advocate

submits that the petitioners appointment was not against the sanctioned post. The said issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others Vs. State of Assam and others reported in Civil Appeal No.4514/2025 . The impugned endorsement issued by the respondents is contrary to the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Dharam Singh , J aggo V. Union of India , Shripal and another and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others (referred supra) . Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

14. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed .

ii. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-Z is hereby quashed.

21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26433 WP No. 424 of 2024

HC-KAR

iii. The Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P reported in 2025 INSC 998 , J aggo V. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 , Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others Vs. State of Assam and others reported in Civil Appeal No.4514/2025 and pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

SKS

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Endorsement/order bearing No. 488324/DMA/EST2/DAWE/34/2021/5498 dated 06.11.2023 passed by Respondent No.2 (Director, Municipal Administration), declining regularisation of the petitioners' services (Annexure-Z).¶36
Respondent No.2 - Director, Municipal Administration · 06.11.2023
Prior proceeding
Appointments: Petitioner No.1 appointed as Bill Collector by Kesaramadu Gram Panchayat under resolution dated 16.09.1989; Petitioner No.2 by Satyamangala Mandal Panchayat under resolution dated 12.07.1995; Petitioner No.3 by Melekote Mandal Panchayat under resolution dated 16.08.1994.¶44
Prior proceeding
By notification dated 10.10.1995, Respondent No.1 brought 22 villages including the Mandal Panchayats under the Tumkuru City Municipal Council and formed 35 wards.¶45
Prior proceeding
Communication dated 19.12.1996 to Respondent No.3 giving the names of 53 employees working in the Mandal Panchayath as Group C and Group D employees, including the petitioners.¶48
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.4, by communication dated 27.01.2007 to Respondent No.3, recommended regularisation of Group C and Group D employees including the petitioners; Respondent No.4 also regularised 43 Group D employees and extended the pay scale attached to the post.¶48
Prior proceeding
Proceedings of the State level Committee regarding regularisation of daily wage employees: the petitioners' case turned down on the ground that they were not working as against the sanctioned post.¶51
Prior proceeding
The petitioners approached this Court in WP No.7083 of 2019 challenging proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.02.2017; the writ petition was allowed by order dated 30.03.2023, quashing the proceedings of respondent No.5 and directing consideration of the petitioners' claim in light of the recommendation made by respondent No.5.¶55
Prior proceeding
Some employees approached this Court in WP Nos. 42085-42089 of 2011; the Court issued a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in accordance with law.¶49
Prior proceeding
This Court disposed of WP Nos. 42085 and 42089 of 2011 by order dated 30.03.2023, directing reconsideration in terms of the recommendation made by respondent No.4 therein by letter dated 29.12.2016 (Annexure-W) within an outer limit of 12 weeks.¶79
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 rejected the petitioners' claim for regularisation without considering the recommendation made by respondent No.5, leading to the impugned endorsement and the present writ petition.¶55