Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20848
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI, J
PARVATI W/O LATE RAMU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.205922 OF 2019 (S-REG)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. NITESH PADIYAL
For the Respondents: SRI. SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., SRI. PRASHANT S. KUMMAN
The court upheld the legal obligation to regularize the petitioner's employment based on the Labor Court's award and her long service duration.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ of Mandamus - Seeking regularization of service - Petitioner contends that service not regularized despite court order and long tenure - Acknowledged legal obligation for regularization - Court directs regularization from initial appointment date. (Paras 5 and 6)
(B) Labor Court Award - The Labor Court directed provision of suitable unskilled job to the petitioner which was not disputed - Following this, the petitioner has served for 26 years, warranting legal protection of employment rights. (Paras 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
A deceased watchman’s wife sought employment through Labor Court award, which mandated her regularization after two decades of service. Respondents failed to regularize her despite fulfillment of conditions.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledges the petitioner’s long service and directs regularization based on legal obligation.
Issues: Whether the respondents are obligated to regularize the petitioner’s services after a lengthy period of uninterrupted work.
Ratio Decidendi: Court found that regularization is warranted given the petitioner’s lengthy service and unfulfilled legal mandate from previous ruling.
Result: Writ Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. regularization of employment based on legal obligations and service duration. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner’s arguments regarding service regularization. (Para 3) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.205922 OF 2019 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
PARVATI W/O LATE RAMU AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NOW GANGWOMEN, O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING, SUB-DIVISION, BASAV KALYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585401.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BIDAR.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION, BIDAR-585401.
4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION, BASAV KALYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585401.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANT S. KUMMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER Sri.Nitesh Padiyal., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sheshadri Jaishankar.M., AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.Prashant S.Kumman., counsel for respondents 2 to 4 have appeared in person.
2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
4. It is said that the petitioner’s husband Mr.Ramu was working as a Watchman in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat Engineering Division, Basavakalyan, District Bidar. He died on 08.05.1993. Hence, the legal representative of deceased Mr.Ramu approached the Labor Court in KID No.336/1998 to provide a job (wife), who was capable of doing any unskilled work in the respondent’s establishment.
After the service of summons, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat entered appearance through its counsel. The Labor Court vide award dated 06.07.1998 allowed the claim petition and directed the respondent to provide suitable unskilled job to the petitioner. It was also observed that the respondent may preferably keep Government Order No.FD 1 TFR 95 dated 27.06.1995 in mind and provide such posting.
5. The petitioner contends that pursuant to the award, she has been provided a job and is working in the establishment of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat as of today. The petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents have not regularized her services. Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner is working in their establishment.
The award of the Labour Court is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-A. A perusal of the same reflects that the Labour Court had allowed the claim and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayath, Engineering Sub-Division, Basavakalyana was directed to provide a suitable unskilled job to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the award, the petitioner was provided a job by the respondent and she has been working in the establishment of the respondent for almost 26 years.
The fourth respondent has a legal obligation to regularize the services of the petitioner because the petitioner has rendered long and uninterrupted service for two and half a decades. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment within two weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
