IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 35516 OF 2018 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. D MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

S/O. LATE. DASEGOWDA,

R/O. KESTUR AT AND POST,

YELANDUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 441.

2. MR. G. GANGADHAR

S/O. GOPALAPPA,

R/AT SULIKUNTE AT POST,

BANGARPET TALUK,

KOLAR DISTRICT 563117

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGAR.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digita lly

signed by

SUNITHA K S 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Location: BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY,

HIGH COURT

K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 022.

OF

KARNATAKA

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER

BESCOM, KOLAR DIVISION,

KOLAR - 563 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.08.2018 (ANNEXURE-A)

ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners in this petition are challenging the endorsement dated 02.08.2018 vide Annexure-A issued by the second respondent and consequently issue direction to the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioners in accordance with law.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:

The petitioners were appointed as a 'Meter Reader' in the respondent-Corporation on 01.01.2001 and the respondents have dismissed the petitioners from service without prior notice or enquiry, vide termination order dated 18.10.2007. The petitioners aggrieved by the order of termination, approached the Labour Court in Reference No.18/2009. The Labour Court, vide order dated 30.11.2010 set aside the order of termination and directed to reinstate the petitioners with 50% back wages. The respondents aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.18/2009, preferred writ petition in WP Nos.21035 & 27603-606/2011. This Court vide order dated 27.07.2011, dismissed the writ petitions. The respondent, aggrieved by the order passed in the said writ petitions, preferred the writ appeals in WA Nos. 15853/2011 and WA Nos. 596-599/2012. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.11.2012, dismissed the writ appeals. After the dismissal of the writ appeals, the petitioners submitted a representation vide Annexure -F dated 09.06.2014 for regularisation of their service to the post of a Meter Reader. Respondent No.2 issued an Endorsement dated 02.08.2018 vide Annexure-A stating that the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service as of the date of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 i.e. 10.01.2006. Petitioners aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 02.08.2018 vide Annexure-A issued by the second respondent, filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed in the respondent- Corporation as a Meter Reader on 01.01.2001 and they have continuously worked for more than 10 years. He submits that the petitioners' services are entitled for regularization. He submits that the petitioners submitted a representation for regularisation of their services. The respondents rejected the representation by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS, AIR 2006 SC 1806 and contended that the petitioners have not completed 10 years as of the date of said judgment. The said Endorsement is contrary to the records. The petitioners have completed more than 10 years.

5. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitio