Karnataka High Court
Sri. Maharudrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5936-DB
WP No. 24986 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 24986 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MAHARUDRAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
RETIRED VETERINARY SUPERVISOR,
AMRITMAHAL FARM
AJJAMPURA, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
R/AT H.NO.473/2, K B EXTENSION,
5TH CROSS, DAVANAGERE-570002.
2. SRI M L NARENDRA
S/O G N LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RETIRED VETERINARY SUPERVISOR,
Digitally signed by CITY VETERINARY HOSPITAL
NANJUNDACHARI
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/AT PADMALAYA,
KARNATAKA DEEPA HOSPITAL ROAD
K R PURAM, BENGALURU-560036.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. K.S. RAKSHITHA, ADV. FOR
SRI. GIRI KUMAR S. V., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT,
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5936-DB
WP No. 24986 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY
SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
PODIUM BLOCK, T V TOWER
BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA
P B NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ORDERS OR ANY WRIT FOR QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/03/2023 IN APPLICATION NOS.937
AND 989/2020 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 06.03.2023 in Application Nos.937 to 940/2020 rejecting their prayer to quash endorsement dated 23.01.2017 and 23.01.2017 and to direct the respondents to re-fix their pay from the date of their appointment in the pay-scale of Rs.100 - Rs.220/- and also to re-fix pay and pension as -3- NC: 2026:KHC:5936-DB WP No. 24986 of 2023 HC-KAR granted to one Sri.Giriyappa in terms of the direction of the Tribunal in Application No.5312/2003 passed on 22.06.2010.
2. Head learned counsel Smt.K.S.Rakshitha for Sri.Girikumar.S.V., learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
3. It is seen from the petition averments that the petitioners were appointed as Live Stock Assistants in the department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services in the year 1968. It is stated that on 01.01.1970, pay- scales were revised. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that representation to protect the pay drawn and services rendered as Live Stock Assistants and also their prayer to re-fix pay was rejected by endorsement dated 23.01.2017.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:5936-DB WP No. 24986 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. The petitioners said to have retired in the year 2003. One Sri.Giriyappa approached the Tribunal in Application No.5312/2003 and the Tribunal by order dated 22.06.2010 allowed the application and directed the respondents to fix pay of said Giriyappa in the pay scale of Rs.100 - Rs.220 in accordance with the Rules.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners are also similarly situated like that of Giriyappa and they would be entitled for the same pay and allowances and based on that revised pensionary benefits.
6. The Tribunal under impugned order rejected the prayer of the petitioners solely on the ground of delay and laches. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches. Section 21 of the State Administrative Tribunals Act prescribes limitation of one year for an aggrieved civil servant to approach the Tribunal. Admittedly, the petitioners' prayer is to re-fix the pay from the date of their appointment in the year 1968 by -5- NC: 2026:KHC:5936-DB WP No. 24986 of 2023 HC-KAR filing application before the Tribunal in the year 2020, that too, more than 17 years after their retirement. There is inordinate delay from the date of cause of action.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in DAMOR NANABHAI MANABHAI & OTHERS. VS. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5619 OF 2024), with regard to the delay in approaching the Court seeking similar treatment with that of similarly situated persons as a matter of right, in paragraphs Nos.8 and 9 has held as under:
"8. This Court has repeatedly disapproved the practice of seeking to revive stale or dead claims by the device of repeated representations, followed by a prayer for a direction to "consider" and a consequential challenge to the order passed on such consideration. In Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, this Court held that even where a belated representation is considered and rejected pursuant to a court's direction, the rejection does not furnish a fresh cause of action. The question of limitation, delay and laches has to be examined with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which -6- NC: 2026:KHC:5936-DB WP No. 24986 of 2023 HC-KAR an order is passed on a representation in compliance with such a direction. We believe that a court or tribunal, before issuing a direction for "consideration" without examining the merits, must first satisfy itself that the claim relates to a live issue. If the claim pertains to a stale or dead issue, the court must put an end to the matter rather than enable avoidable, successive rounds of litigation.
9. In the present case, the petitioners, whose services stand terminated, are not identically situated as the writ petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4293 of 2021, who raised a claim in respect of higher grade pay scales while being in service. Similarly, while a court order in favour of a set of persons may, in appropriate cases, be extended to others who are identically situated, this is subject to recognised exceptions, including delay, laches and acquiescence. Those who seek to claim the benefit after long delay, merely upon noticing that others have succeeded, cannot as a matter of course demand similar relief. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, this Court has explained these principles succinctly in the following portion:
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:5936-DB WP No. 24986 of 2023 HC-KAR 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim."
8. The Tribunal placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court has rightly dismissed the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5936-DB WP No. 24986 of 2023 HC-KAR application. Before this Court also, the petitioners are not in a position to explain the inordinate delay and they have not shown acceptable cause to entertain the application before the Tribunal.
9. In the above circumstances, confirming the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the application on the ground of delay and laches, the present writ petition also stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms:
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5