Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sreenivas vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6288
WP No. 33866 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 33866 OF 2016 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SREENIVAS
S/OLATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WATER SUPPLY DIVISION
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
MADHUGIRI -572 132
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU M.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
signed by VIKASA SOUDHA
PRAMILA G V DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
Location: BANGALORE-560 001
HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH FLOOR
VISVESWARAYA TOWERS
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRSENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
MADHUGIRI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6288
WP No. 33866 of 2016
HC-KAR
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI. MANOJ M NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DTD:22.7.2014 BEARING NO.17/2008-09 AT
ANNEXURE-P.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD:27.8.2014 AT
ANNEXURE-Q AND VARIOUS OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OF
THE PETITIONER AND PROVIDE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
TO THE PETITIONER INTHE R-3 COUNCIL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed for the following reasons.
"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the Endorsement dated 22.07.2014, bearing NO.17/2008-09 at ANNEXURE P.
b) Issue a writ or Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 27.08.2014 at ANNEXURE Q and various other representations of the Petitioner and provide Equal pay for Equal Work to the Petitioner in the 3rd Respondent Council.
c) Issue any other order or direction as deemed fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:6288 WP No. 33866 of 2016 HC-KAR
2. Vide endorsement dated 22.07.2014 at Annexure-P, the petitioner's request to pay equal wages for equal work is rejected on the premise that the petitioner is working under the contractor.
3. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 27.08.2014 at Annexure-Q, in terms of which, the petitioner has addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary of the Municipal Administration. The copy is also marked to respondent No.2.
4. The petitioner claims that he is working under respondent No.3 as Water Supply Assistant as a daily wager from 25.07.1998. It is submitted that there are 15 such workers who are working under respondent No.3 and in terms of order dated 28.10.1999, the 14 persons named in Annexure-A were directed to be regularised in service. The petitioner's name was not included in the said order at Annexure-A.
5. The petitioner filed writ petition No.1261/2008 claiming equal pay for equal work. This Court vide order dated 20.08.2009 passed the following order which reads as under:- -4-
NC: 2026:KHC:6288 WP No. 33866 of 2016 HC-KAR "The petitioner seeks equal pay for equal work.
2. It is his case that he had been appointed as a Water Supply Assistant in the second respondent-
Municipality in the year 1998. He had been paid by the respondent a wage, which was much lower than what was paid to its regular employees. The claim of the petitioner and others that they should be regularized has been acknowledged by the State Government by setting up Committees to consider the case of the daily wage workers. The second respondent has in fact recommended the case of several persons for regularisation, including the petitioner, in terms of Annexure-"B". If that be so, it is for the petitioner to await the regularisation of his service, which is pending consideration.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner or the recommendation made by the second respondent to the Government for regularisation of the services of the petitioner. If on regularisation, the petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit extended to a regular employee, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved."
6. Thereafter, the petitioner's claim was rejected and again petitioner filed a writ petition No.39100/2010 wherein, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to consider his claim for equal wage for equal work and to quash the order dated 17.05.2007 which declined the relief to the petitioner.
7. In terms of order dated 03.01.2012, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the endorsement dated 17.05.2007 and remanded the matter to the respondents for -5- NC: 2026:KHC:6288 WP No. 33866 of 2016 HC-KAR consideration of the petitioner's claim for regularisation and equal pay for equal work in accordance with law.
8. The paragraph No.3 of the order referred to above, reads as under:-
"3. The impugned endorsement the only reason assigned by the respondents is that the petitioner is working on contract basis and therefore he is not entitled for equal wages for equal work. This reasoning is contrary to law. It is obligatory on the part of the respondents to pay minimum wages to the petitioner. Even the claim of the petitioner for minimum wages is not considered in the impugned endorsement. It is not the case of the respondent that petitioner is a part time worker. In the circumstances impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-M, the letter addressed by the Chief Officer to the Director of Municipal Administration i.e. the respondent No.2. In the said letter, it is stated that in terms of order dated 28.10.1999, 14 workers (named in Annexure-A) are given the benefit of equal wage for equal work. It is also noticed in the said letter that while sending the recommendation, the petitioner's name is not included and reason for not including the petitioner's name is not -6- NC: 2026:KHC:6288 WP No. 33866 of 2016 HC-KAR forthcoming. It is stated in the said letter that with effect from 01.04.2002, the petitioner is working under the contractor.
10. Said letter dated 10.06.2013 also reveals that 10 persons were employed as daily wagers and petitioner is one among them.
11. It is also to be noticed that there is no dispute that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days continuously.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also referred to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.106110/2024 and submits that pursuant to the said order, the Government has issued a notification to initiate the process of regularising the employees named in the said notification bearing No.f£ÀPÉÆç/¹§âA¢.1/19/2024-25.
13. Learned Government Advocate would also submit that the circular at No.f£ÀPÉÆç/¹§âA¢.1/19/2024-25 is issued pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.115153/2019 and connected matters.
14. In case, the petitioner seeks same benefit as conferred on the petitioners in W.P. No.115153/2019 then, the petitioner has to make an application to the competent -7- NC: 2026:KHC:6288 WP No. 33866 of 2016 HC-KAR authority. If so done, the competent authority shall consider the claim within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the application along with the copy of this order.
15. As already noticed, the finding of the Court in the previous proceeding in W.P. No.39100/2010 that the petitioner is entitled to minimum wages has attained finality. Thus, the respondent No.3-Municipality shall consider as to whether the minimum wages payable to the petitioner since 25.07.1998 are paid or not. In case if it is not paid, same shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, as the Court in W.P. No.39100/2010 has held that the petitioner is entitled to minimum wages.
16. It is made clear that the direction to pay the minimum wages should not be construed as having held that the petitioner is not entitled to equal pay for equal work which is the prayer sought in the petition. Whether the petitioner is entitled to or equal wages on par with other similarly placed employees or not has to be considered in the light of the judgment in W.P. No.106110/2024 and other credentials to be submitted by the petitioner. Hence, the following:- -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:6288 WP No. 33866 of 2016 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The respondent No.3-Municipality shall pay minimum wages (if not paid) as required under law to the petitioner since the date of appointment.
(iii) The respondent No.3 shall communicate to the petitioner in writing as to what was the minimum wage payable since the date of appointment and subsequent time to time revision in minimum wages, if any. Based on said consideration, the amount paid and arrears if any payable shall be informed in writing and if any arrears of wages are required to be paid, shall be paid within 60 days from today.
(iv) In case, the petitioner files an application for regularisation of employment, same shall be -9- NC: 2026:KHC:6288 WP No. 33866 of 2016 HC-KAR considered within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application.
(v) The Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim relating to regularisation.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS,CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26