ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

“A. CALL for records from the Respondents pertaining to the impugned order.

B. ISSUE A WRIT in the nature to declaring that section 5(1) of the Karnataka Part-Time Job Oriented Course Employees Absorption Act 2011 as unconstitutional and unenforceable (Annexure-B) vide bearing no. Sam Vya Shaa E 22 Sha San 2011, Bangalore dtd 06-04-2011 and CONSEQUENTLY QUASH the impugned condition No. 1 in the Absorption order dated. 20.09.2014 (Annexure-C). bearing no. C8(6)/ Sha. Shia. Vru. Shi/Vilin. Counseling -02/2012-13 passed by the Respondent No.2.

C. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER directing the Respondents to reckon the service of the Petitioner from the date of initial entry till the date of regularization for the purpose of fixation of pay, pensionary benefits and further direct them to pay all consequential monetary benefits including pension forthwith.

D. PASS any other order as it deem fit as per facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, in unison, submit that the issue involved in the present lis stands answered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.103754/2025 and connected matters, disposed of on 16^th October, 2025. The relevant portion reads as follows:

1. “Heard Sri.Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirthilata R. Patil, learned HCGP for respondent-State.

2. The petitioners in all these cases are identical to those who had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition No.105996/2016 and connected matters. This Court, while considering the services rendered by persons possessing job- oriented diploma qualifications and seeking absorption from a retrospective date, i.e., the date of their initial appointment, had negatived such a claim. However, the Court had directed the State to consider their cases for grant of pension, taking into account that the particular cadre was already dwindling in number.

3. The present petitioners are similarly situated as those in the earlier batch of petitions. Therefore, it is necessary for the State to consider the cases of these petitioners as well, if such consideration has already ensued pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 20.12.2023. This Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has held as follows:

“ 2. The facts in brief are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as a part time worker/teacher in Tailoring and Embroidery in Job Oriented Diploma Course at the 5th respondent/B.R.Ambekar Education Society, Shidenur on 01-08-1991. It is the claim of the petitioner that her appointment was approved by the competent authority on 28-09-1991. Later she joined the 6th respondent/B.E.M.S. Arts and Commerce College, Byadagi on 15-07-1992. Owing to the fact that the petitioner and several other employees working in job oriented courses had to be regularized, the Government of Karnataka notified the Karnataka Part Time Job Oriented Course Employees Absorption Act, 2011 (‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner, like every other job oriented course employee, was absorbed under the Act. She continued to work after the absorption and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2013. It is the claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to terminal benefits for having worked close to 22 years under the services of the State Government. That having not been granted, she has knocked at the doors of this Court in the present petition seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for grant of pension and other terminal benefits.

3. During the pendency of the petition, the petition is amended to seek a declaration with regard to the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Act. All other companion petitions also raise a similar challenge. The respective dates of entry into service and date of retirement vary, but in eff