Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Suresh, S/o. Hanumantappa Jambagi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Rep. By Its Secretary, Department Of Irrigation – Respondent
ORDER :
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 26.04.2014 in noM.A.KA.NI.VRUTHA/C3/HUB/2013-14/240 passed by the 4th respondent vide ANNEXURE-J in the interest of justice and equity.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant time bond scale to the petitioner from the date of regularization that is 02.05.1993 and continue the petitioner in the post of Literate Assistant in group C post in the interest of justice and equity.
(c) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case including award of cost in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed to respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 13.01.1984, as a daily wages employee. On 02.09.1994, the services of the petitioner were regularized in the post/cadre of Literate Assistant with effect from 02.05.1993. In pursuance of t
The absence of justifiable grounds and failure to adhere to principles of natural justice rendered the withdrawal of service regularization unlawful, necessitating reconsideration of the effective da....
Delays defeat equity, and the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. Inordinate delay in challenging an order may lead to the dismissal of the petition.
Employees are entitled to regularization on completion of three years of service from their date of initial engagement, as per relevant government orders and previous court decisions.
Delay and laches bar service claims, particularly where acquiescence and potential impact on third-party rights are involved.
Delay cannot be a sole ground for rejecting a writ application, especially in cases involving violations of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 29 of the Constitution of India.
Prolonged delay in asserting rights can result in denial of judicial relief, emphasizing the need for prompt action to maintain claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
