Karnataka High Court
M/S Beml Limited vs Mr Shankar Nayaka on 11 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8364-DB
WA No. 691 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2025 (L-DE)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. BEML LIMITED
EQUIPMENT DIVISION,
MYSORE COMPLEX,
MYSORE - 571 606.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL)
AND IN THESE PROCEEDINGS
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
(LEGAL) CORPORATE OFFICE,
Digitally signed SRI M.K. VIDHYADHARAN
by
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI ...APPELLANT
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR
Karnataka
SRI. PRADEEP S SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. SHANKAR NAYAKA
S/O LATE JAVARA NAYAKA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8364-DB
WA No. 691 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.47,
G BLOCK,
3RD STAGE,
VIJAYANAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 17.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B N MAHESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER
DATED 13.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP No.30593/2012 (L-DE) GRANTING APPROVAL AS
PRAYER FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8364-DB
WA No. 691 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) Heard Mr. Syed Kashif Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Despite the matter having been taken up in the revised call, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent to oppose this appeal.
2. The present intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.30593/2012.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ court, for the sake of convenience.
4. The respondent was issued a caste certificate dated 06.03.1992, certifying that he belongs to 'Nayaka' community, a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Karnataka. The respondent was appointed in the petitioner - Company, a Central Government of India Undertaking, on the post of Technician (Fitter/Mechanic) with effect from 01.05.1992.
5. The petitioner issued a show-cause notice dated 28.04.2009 alleging that the respondent, at the time of -4- NC: 2026:KHC:8364-DB WA No. 691 of 2025 HC-KAR absorption in the petitioner - Company, submitted a caste certificate claiming to be from 'Nayaka' community under ST category and based on the said claim, he was absorbed in the petitioner - Company.
6. It appears that a complaint was made against the respondent - workman. The District Caste Verification Committee examined the complaint and vide its report dated 24.02.2009, held that the respondent did not belong to 'Nayaka' community, but he was from 'Parivara' caste and not a Scheduled Tribe.
7. Based on the said report, the show-cause notice, as mentioned above, was issued to the respondent and after holding the enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service vide order dated 16.05.2009. There was some industrial dispute was pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short 'CGIT'), the petitioner - Company filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval of its order of dismissal of the respondent from service with effect from 16.05.2009. The said -5- NC: 2026:KHC:8364-DB WA No. 691 of 2025 HC-KAR application, however, came to be rejected by the CGIT vide order dated 13.12.2011.
8. The said order of the CGIT was challenged by the petitioner - Company before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.30593/2012. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the Government order dated 11.03.2002, held that the respondent's appointment cannot be cancelled, as he did not obtain the caste certificate by playing any fraud and the caste certificate issued to him was not a fake and forged document on the basis of which he obtained employment/absorption in the petitioner - Company.
9. The entire Government order dated 11.03.2002 issued by the State Government has been extracted in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. In fact, the State Government itself, vide Gazette Notification dated 25.04.2022, has clarified that 'Parivara' Community was treated as a synonym of 'Nayaka' earlier. However, the same should not be considered anymore as Scheduled Tribe category.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:8364-DB WA No. 691 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. Thus, it is evident that, till at least 2002, 'Parivara' was considered as 'Nayaka' in the State of Karnataka. When the 'Parivara' was considered as 'Nayaka' till 11.03.2002 and the respondent was issued a caste certificate dated 06.03.1992, certifying him belonging to 'Nayaka' community, it cannot be said that he had obtained the caste certificate by playing fraud or misrepresenting the authorities. It is also not in dispute that the caste certificate was issued by the competent authority in favour of the respondent - workman.
11. We are, therefore, of the view that when the 'Parivara' caste was considered a synonym of 'Nayaka' before 11.03.2002, the benefit obtained by the respondent, on the basis of the caste certificate issued to him, way back in 1992, cannot be withdrawn, at this distant point of time.
12. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in any manner while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner - Company against the order passed by the CGIT refusing to grant permission for dismissal of the respondent - workman from -7- NC: 2026:KHC:8364-DB WA No. 691 of 2025 HC-KAR service. We, thus, find no merit in this writ appeal. It is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15