Sri Channabasappa K S v. The State of Karnataka

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:23450 WP(No.(13387(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S.R.KRISHNA(KUMAR( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(13387(OF(2026((S-RES) BETWEEN:(

1., SRI.,CHANNABASAPPA,K.S,, S/O,SHARANAPPA.K,, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS,, RETIRED,AS,FOREST,WATCHER,'D',GROUP,, RANGE,FOREST,OFFICE,JAGALUR,, ,SOCIAL,FORESTRY,,JAGALUR,TALUK,.,, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,513.,

2., SRI.,LAKSHMANAIK.,, S/O,THOTHYA,NAIK,,, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS,, PRESENTLY,WORKING,AS,, FOREST,WATCHER,'D',GROUP,, RANGE,FOREST,OFFICE,JAGALUR,,,Digitallytisigned by SOCIAL,FORESTRY,,JAGALUR,TALUK,,, SHARADAVANI B DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,513., Location:0High Courttiof …PETITIONERS, Karnataka (BY,SRI.,BASAVARAJA,PATEL,G.K,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REP.,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,,, DEPARTMENT,OF,FOREST,,, ECOLOGY,AND,ENVIRONMENT,, M.S.,BUILDING,,BENGALURU,-,560,001.,

2., THE,PRINCIPAL,CHIEF,CONSERVATOR,, OF,FORESTS,,(HEAD,OF,THE,FOREST,FORCE),ARANYA, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:23450 WP(No.(13387(of(2026 BHAVANA,,3RD,FLOOR,, 18TH,CROSS,,MALLESHWARAM,,, BENGALURU,-,560,003.,

3., THE,DEPUTY,CONSERVATOR,OF,FORESTS,, SOCIAL,FORESTRY,,DAVANAGARE,DIVISION, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,513.,

4., THE,RANGE,FOREST,OFFICER,, SOCIAL,FORESTRY,,JAGALUR,TALUK,,, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,513., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SPOORTHY,HEGDE,,AGA,FOR,R1,TO,R4), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, CALL, FOR, THE, RECORDS, RELATING, TO, THE, IMPUGNED, COMMON, ENDORSEMENTS, ORDER, BEARING, NO.SAAASAM/SAAAAVIDAA, /MAA, /HA/CR/2025-26/265, DATED,10.12.2024,VIDE,ANNEXURE-H,PASSED,BY,THE,RESPONDENT, NO.4,,PERUSE,AND,QUASH,THE,SAME,AS,ARBITRARY,,ILLEGAL,AND, VIOLATIVE,OF,ARTICLES,14,AND,16(1),OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF, INDIA,AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,, THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S.R.KRISHNA,KUMAR

ORAL ORDER In this petition petitioners seeks the following reliefs. " PRAYER i. Call for the records relating to the impugned common endorsements order bearing No.A2/DAILY WASES/WPNO 28996/2024(S-RES)/2024-25/955 Dated

10.12.2024 vide Annexure-H passed by the Respondent No.4, peruse and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the constitution of India. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the claim of the Petitioners for the service benefits in terms of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act 2012 vide Annexure-D, by holding them eligible for the benefits under the said Act for the long services rendered by the Petitioners with all monetary benefits; iii. Pass such other orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶2Heard Sri. Basavaraja Patel G.K., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Spoorthy Hegde, learned AGA for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶3A perusal of the material on record would indicate that during the period 1995-1996, the petitioners were appointed as Forest

Watchers in the respondents' department and have been working in various places for around 32 years as per Annexure A. By Government orders dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012, the State Government enhanced the daily wages payable to the petitioner by Rs.1,000/-. But the said benefits were granted in favour of the petitioners only up to 2017 and not thereafter. Meanwhile, on 15.02.2013, the State Government enacted the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012 extending the benefits of Regular Government Servant to Daily Wage's Appoint Employees also. Under these circumstances, several similarly situated daily wages were notified by the State Government in the year 2014, subsequent to which, the petitioners as well as other persons submitted several representations before the State Government seeking extension of enhanced wages in their favour also. Being aggrieved by the non consideration of their grievances, the petitioners filed WP No.29873/2024 and WP No.29221/2024 along with others and connected matters, which was allowed and disposed of by this Court vide Order at Annexure - G dated 29.11.2024. The said order passed by this Court vide Annexure G reads as under:

" ORAL ORDER

In all these matters, petitioners who are stated to have been appointed as forest watchers in the respondent - Department assert that they have been working for a long period of time and have completed 10 years as on

10.04.2006.

¶2The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the claim of petitioners for service benefits in terms of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (for short '2012 Act') by recording a finding that they are eligible for the benefit under the Act for the services rendered over a long period of time. Petitioners have also sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay monthly payment of Rs.1,000/- from 2009 and Rs.2,000/- from 2012 as per the Government Orders dated

11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012 vide Annexures B and C respectively.

¶3It is submitted that by virtue of coming into force of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012, the provision under Section 2(a) would include daily wage employees who have worked and completed not less than 10 years as on 10.04.2006. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 3 of the 2012 Act, the employees engaged on daily wage are entitled to continue till they complete the age of 60 years. It is also pointed out that there are various other benefits provided under Section 4 of the 2012 Act.

¶4It is submitted that in W.P.No.29873/2024, the Range Forest Officer, Kaggalipura Range, has addressed a

communication to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bangalore Urban Division vide Annexure-A and has observed in the communication dated 30.10.2015 that the petitioners have made a representation regarding their long service and extension of benefit under the 2012 Act. Such a proposal has been forwarded along with a Schedule containing details of names of petitioners, dates on which they have been engaged on daily wage basis and other details including the place at which they have worked as well as the emoluments drawn by them.

¶5In other connected matters also, similar communications have been addressed by the concerned officer to the Authority.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo along with the table indicating the names of the petitioners, the serial number found in the schedule, the date of such employee having joined service. The said table is provided as hereunder: W.P.No. Petitioner Sl No. of the petition er in the Schedu le of Annexu re-A Joining Date Tot al Le ngt h of ser vic e 29873/2024 Muniraju

01.07.1994

"-" Krishnappa

01.07.1994 28996/2024 Channabasappa K S

01.10.1995 * "-" Lakshman Naik

01.07.1990 29220/2024 Paramesh

01.09.1992 "-" Anjinappa

04.01.1990 "-" Sanjeevayya

01.04.1989 "-" Siddaraju N C

09.07.1995 "-" Honnayya

01.04.1996 29221/2024 Erabhadra

01.12.1995 "-" Lokesh M

01.10.1995 "-" Gopal

01.12.1995 "-" Javaregowda

01.12.1995 "-" Venkatesha J

01.04.1995 "-" Lingappa

04.02.1996 "-" Ganesh J K

01.03.1996 "-" Prasanna S

01.04.1996 "-" Ramesha P B

01.04.1996 "-" Shivaswamy

23.11.1995 "-" Kumara

01.07.1995 "-" Ramesha A B

01.02.1996 "-" Rajanna A

01.02.1996 29682/2024 Kumar **

01.03.1995 "-" Thammegowda

01.03.1994 "-" Jayarama **

01.03.1995 "-" Shivalingappa

01.11.1995 "-" Kumara D **

01.03.1995 e -e8e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:23450 WP(No.(13387(of(2026 29722/2024e Palaiahe 3e 01.01.1995e 29e "-"e GovindappaeBe 1e 01.01.1995e 29e "-"e ThippeswamyeMe 4e 01.01.1992e 32e 29734/2024e PrakasheHeRe 1e 01.01.1996e 28e 29894/2024e NatarajaeVe 1e 26.06.1995e 29e "-"e C.eN.e 7e 26.06.1995e 29e Shankarappae "-"e Ravanappae 2e 26.06.1995e 29e "-"e Erappae 6e 26.06.1995e 29e "-"e Shankarappae 5e 26.06.1995e 29e "-"e G.eN.eChalapathie 8e 20.09.1995e 29e 31234/2024e Eshware 3e 01.04.1985e 39e *easeaverredeinetheepetitione **e Insofare ase Petitionere Nos.e 1,e 3e ande 5e ine W.P.No.29682/2024e aree concerned,e theire namese weree recommendede bye waye ofe ae separatee proposale ase pere Annexure-Eedatede22.11.2023.e

¶7It is accordingly submitted that a perusal of the date of joining in service would indicate that they have completed 10 years of work and accordingly are eligible for benefits under the 2012 Act. It is also submitted that apart from such request made, the petitioners are also eligible for payment in terms of the Government orders dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012 vide Annexures B and C respectively.

¶8Taking note of the same, case is made out to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioners in light of the communication at Annexure-A in all the writ petitions made by the concerned officer to the Authority giving necessary details regarding the length of service. Accordingly, respondent - Authorities are directed to consider the request of petitioners as made out in Annexure-A in accordance with law. Respondents are also directed to consider the request of the petitioners for extension of payment in terms of the Government orders dated

11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012. Such consideration to be made within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All contentions are kept open.

¶9In light of the above, petitions are disposed off."

¶4It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite the aforesaid order passed by this Court, which had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents and filing of contempt proceedings in CCC No.1241/2025, respondent No.5 issued common endorsement dated 10.12.2024 to the effect that the

petitioners' services cannot be considered under the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012, since the notification under the said Act had to be issued within one year from the date of commencement of the said Act, which came into force on 15.02.2013 and the said notification not having been issued to the petitioners within the aforesaid period of one year, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefits under the said Act.

¶5Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, the petitioners are before this Court, inter alia contending that in relation to identically /similarly situated Daily Wage Employees, the State Government has extended the benefits even after the lapse of more than one year and on the ground of parity, the impugned endorsement deserves to be quashed and the petitioners would be entitled to similar benefit. It is also submitted that having regard to the fact that aforesaid Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012 is a welfare piece of legislation and has been enacted with the intention of extending the benefit to Daily Wage Employees, the inaction on the part of the State Government to issue a notification extending the benefit to the petitioners could not have been made the basis to issue the impugned

endorsements dated 10.12.2024 vide Annexures H, which deserve to be quashed.

¶6Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶7I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶8As noticed supra, in the earlier round of litigation, this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Act, which is undisputedly a beneficial piece of legislation. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the mere inaction on the part of the respondent - State to issue a notification extending the benefit of the said Act to the petitioners also could not have been made the basis to deny / deprive the entitlement of the petitioners from the benefits under the said Act and especially when the respondents themselves have extended the benefit to similarly / identically situated Daily Wage Employees even after expiry of one year.

¶9Under these circumstances, by invoking /applying the doctrine of parity, I am of the view that the impugned endorsements

deserve to be quashed and respondents are to be directed to extend the benefits of the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012 in favour of the petitioners and grant all benefits flowing therefrom within a stipulated time frame. ORDER

(i) Writ petition is thereby allowed.

(ii) The Impugned Annexure - H is hereby quashed.

(iii) The respondents are directed to grant the benefits including monetary benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012, in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iv) Subject to the petitioner producing all relevant documents before the respondents. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25