Mrs. Kamalakshi v. The State of Karnataka

ORDER

¶1A writ of mandamus issues to respondent No.5-Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru, to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and the Government Order dated 25.05.2006 from the date on which the petitioners completed ten years of service.

¶2The impugned communication dated

27.12.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶3In case of the petitioners who have attained the age of superannuation subsequent to filing of these writ petitions, their cases also shall be considered for deemed regularization and after the order of deemed regularization is passed with respect to such of the petitioners, all the retrial benefits as is available for a regular employees shall be given.

¶4In case of such of the petitioners who continued to work in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court, their salaries shall be paid for the services rendered by them pursuant to the interim orders.

It is ordered accordingly."

Accordingly, the above writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.50876/2019 and connected matters disposed of on 21.10.2020.

The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

(Emphasis supplied)

The afore-quoted order results in passage of the order regularising the service of the husband of petitioner No.1. The order reads as follows:

The petitioners thereafter submit an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in favour of petitioner No.3, the daughter of the deceased Siddaraju. The application comes to be rejected by the impugned endorsement on a strange ground that, as on the date of death of the employee, he was not a regular employee. When this Court, in terms of the order quoted supra, has directly recognised that the service

of the deceased employee should be treated as deemed to have been regularised along with the others, the endorsement would run foul of the order passed in W.P.No.905/2022. Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that when an employee has been adjudicating his right for regularisation of his service and the order of regularisation subsequently comes to be passed, the respondents cannot ignore the said order on the ground that the employee was not a regular employee as on the date of his death. The deceased employee would be deemed to have been regularised in terms of the order passed by this Court. If others have been regularised in the same manner, the benefit flowing from such regularisation cannot be denied to the petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible under the relevant scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶9The orders dated 14.05.2025 and 11.06.2025, on the face of it, are unsustainable, as the reason assigned therein is that the service of the deceased employee was not regularised as on the date of his death. That stage no longer survives in view of the order passed by this Court treating the service of

the deceased employee as deemed to have been regularised. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed.

¶10For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition stands allowed. b. The impugned endorsement dated 14.05.2025 and the endorsement dated 11.06.2025 stand quashed. c. The respondents shall now pass appropriate orders considering the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds, in terms of the representations submitted by them, within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1325 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. KAMALAKSHI, W/O LATE SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 2. MR. S.HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O LATE SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 3. MISS.LAVANYA, D/O LATE SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO.1735, 12TH CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE - 570 007. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. 2. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka ADMINISTRATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, BENGALURU 560001. 3. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU 570024, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU, KRISHNARAJA BOULVARD ROAD, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU 570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-2 & R-4; SMT. GEETHADEVI M.P, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. 1140038 DMA/EST3/CGA/1/2023 DATED 14.05.2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 AND ORDER BEARING NO.C.E.S.T(2) CR-14/2023-24 DATED 11.06.2025 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND Q AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order bearing No.1140038 DMA/EST3/CGA/1/2023 dated 14.05.2025 passed by the second respondent and an endorsement bearing No.C.E.S.T(2) CR-14/2023-24 dated 11.06.2025 issued by the third respondent and also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Heard Sri Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Smt. Geethadevi M.P., learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 3.1 One Siddaraju, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, was working as a daily wage worker and later gets appointed as a Loader on 07.07.1986 in the Mysore City Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short). After completion of ten years of service, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, along with others, had registered their claim for regularisation of their services before the Corporation and the request for such regularisation was rejected in terms of an endorsement dated 27.12.2017. This is called in question before this Court by the husband of petitioner No.1, along with others, in W.P.No.12224/2020. During the pendency of the said proceedings before this Court, Siddaraju, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, dies on 12.10.2020. The petitioners then submit a representation to the respondents-Corporation, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the aforesaid writ petition comes to be allowed in terms of the order dated 25.08.2021, by setting aside the endorsement dated 27.12.2017, with a direction to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for regularisation, except the case of the petitioners, as the petition filed by the husband of petitioner No.1 stood abated on his death, and liberty was granted to the legal heirs to agitate their grievance. The petitioners then had to knock at the doors of this Court in W.P.No.905/2022, seeking that the earlier claim for regularisation of the services of the husband of petitioner No.1 be categorised as deemed regularisation and all consequential benefits be granted. A coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said writ petition in terms of its order dated 22