Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.G.PANDIT, GEETHA K.B.
State Of Karnataka, By Its Secretary, Department Of Minor Irrigation And Ground Water Department – Appellant
Versus
Veerupaxappa, S/o. Banappa Ullagaddi – Respondent
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
Delay in seeking regularisation can undermine entitlement to benefits when claimants accept prior advantages and do not act in a timely manner.
Daily wage employees who meet the eligibility criteria under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, are entitled to be considered for regularizat....
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regularisation of service could only be from the date of the petitioners' appointment in regular service i.e., 03.10.2012, and not from th....
Discriminatory treatment in employment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, necessitating equal consideration for regularization and pension benefits for similarly situated employees.
The principle of equality before the law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of irrelevant factors, the principle of reasonableness, which requires that government action be based on rationa....
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
