Delay in seeking regularisation can undermine entitlement to benefits when claimants accept prior advantages and do not act in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT :

S.G.PANDIT, J.

The appeal – W.A. No.100604/2025 by the State authorities in Irrigation and Water Resource Department is directed against the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in W.P. No.106610/2024 whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the endorsement dated 02.08.2024 and consequently issued mandamus to consider the petitioner’s case bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order with a further observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from such consideration.

2. The other writ appeals are filed against the orders passed in the writ petitions which were disposed of following the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in W.P. No.106610/2024 which is the subject matter in W.A. No.100604/2025.

3. Heard Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate for the appellants, and Sri. Vijaykumar Balagerimath, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

4. The respondent in W.A. No.100607/2025, though served, has remained unrepresented.

5. The parties would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge.

6. The petitioners approached this Court with a prayer to quash the endorsement dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure-G) under which the request of the petitioners for regularisation was rejected, and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners as on the date they were eligible, and to give all the benefits in terms of their representation. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that certain daily wage employees of the Minor Irrigation Department had approached the Tribunal seeking regularisation and ultimately, the same was taken up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malathi Das (Retired) Now P.B. Mahishy and Others Vs. Suresh and Others, (2014) 13 SCC 249 , directed regularisation of 74 persons who were before it.

7. In pursuance of the decision in Malathi Das’s case (supra), the petitioners therein were regularised subsequently, under the order dated 27.04.2015. Claiming similar benefit, which was extended to the petitioners in Malathi Das’s case (supra), the petitioners approached this Court in the writ petitions, and the learned Single Judge, holding that the petitioners are also similarly situated persons as that of the petitioners in Malathi Das’s case (supra), quashed the endorsement dated 02.08.2024 whereby the petitioner’s request for regularisation was rejected, and further directed to consider the petitioners’case and to grant all consequential benefits.

8. Learned Principal Government Advocate for the appellants/respondents contended that the petitioners are not similarly situated persons as that of the petitioners in Malathi Das’s case (supra). He submits that the petitioners were extended the benefit under Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the 2012 Act’). It is further submitted that, except the petitioner/respondent in W.A. No.100604/2015, all other petitioners, after their retirement, approached this Court for regularisation that too after having accepted all the benefits under the 2012 Act including gratuity amount of nearly Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the persons covered under Malathi Das’s case (supra) were regularised in the year 2015, whereas the petitioners herein slept over their rights and only after their retirement approached this Court for regularisation. In that circumstance, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioners would not be entitled to similar treatment as g