Karnataka High Court
Sri C N Shankarappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 May, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 15271 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C. N. SHANKARAPPA
S/O NARASIHMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
FOREST WATCHER 'D' GROUP
RANGE FOREST OFFICE SRINIVASAPURA,
SOCIAL FORESTRY,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
2. SRI. RAVANAPPA. V.,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
FOREST WATCHER 'D' GROUP
RANGE FOREST OFFICE SRINIVASAPURA,
Digitally signed
SOCIAL FORESTRY,
by CHANDANA SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
BM KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 3. SRI. ERAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
FOREST WATCHER 'D' GROUP
RANGE FOREST OFFICE SRINIVASAPURA,
SOCIAL FORESTRY,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101
4. SRI. SHANKARAPPA
S/O PEDDANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026
HC-KAR
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
FOREST WATCHER 'D' GROUP
RANGE FOREST OFFICE SRINIVASAPURA,
SOCIAL FORESTRY,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
5. SRI. CHALAPATHI. G. N.,
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
FOREST WATCHER 'D' GROUP
RANGE FOREST OFFICE SRINIVASAPURA,
SOCIAL FORESTRY,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJA PATEL G. K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
(HEAD OF THE FOREST FORCE)
ARANYA BHAVANA, 3RD FLOOR,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
KOLAR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
4. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
SOCIAL FORESTRY,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAREDDY V., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-I. CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ORDER
BEARING NO.VA.AA.AA/DI.GO. VE/CR-/2025-26 DATED 22.12.2025
VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, IN SO
FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED PERUSE AND QUASH
THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES
14 AND 16(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:-
“i. Call for the records relating to the impugned
endorsement order bearing No.
Va.Aa.Aa/Di.Go.Ve/CR- /2025-26 Dated 22.12.2025
vide Annexure-H passed by the Respondent No.4, in
so far as petitioners are concerned peruse and quash
the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles
14 and 16(1) of the constitution of India.
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider
the claim of the Petitioners for the service
benefits in terms of the Karnataka Daily Wage
Employees Welfare Act 2012 vide Annexure-D, by
holding them eligible for the benefits under the said
Act for the long services rendered by the Petitioners
with all monetary benefits;
iii. Pass such other orders or direction as this Hon’ble
Court may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. Though several contentions have been urged by both
sides in support of their respective claims, the issue in controversy
between the parties is directly and squarely covered by the
judgment of this Court in the case of Erabbhadra K.M., and Ors
Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., – W.P.No.8312/2026 dated
23.03.2026, wherein it was held as under:
“In this petition petitioner seeks the following reliefs.
“i. Call for the records relating to the common impugned
endorsements order bearing No.B1/BGT/CR-12/2023-24 Dated
01.09.2025 vide Annexure-H to H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7,
H8, H9, H10, H11 and H12 passed by the Respondent No.4,
peruse and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider
the claim of the Petitioners for the service benefits in terms of
the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act 2012 vide
Annexure-D, by holding them eligible for the benefits under the
said Act for the long services rendered by the Petitioners with all
monetary benefits;
iii. Pass such other orders or direction as this Hon’ble
Court may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard Sri. Basavaraja Patel G.K., learned counsel
for the petitioners, Smt. Spoorthy Hegde, learned AGA for
respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate
that during the period 1995-1996, the petitioners were appointed
as Forest Watchers in the respondents’ department and have
been working in various places for around 29 years as per
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026
HC-KAR
Annexure A. By Government orders dated 11.06.2009 and
31.07.2012, the State Government enhanced the daily wages
payable to the petitioner by Rs.1,000/-. But the said benefits were
granted in favour of the petitioners only up to 2017 and not
thereafter. Meanwhile, on 15.02.2013, the State Government
enacted the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees’ Welfare Act,
2012 extending the benefits of Regular Government Servant to
Daily Wage’s Appoint Employees also. Under these
circumstances, several similarly situated daily wages were
notified by the State Government in the year 2014, subsequent to
which, the petitioners as well as other persons submitted several
representations before the State Government seeking extension
of enhanced wages in their favour also. Being aggrieved by the
non consideration of their grievances, the petitioners filed WP
No.29873/2024 and WP No.29221/2024 along with others and
connected matters, which was allowed and disposed of by this
Court vide Order at Annexure – G dated 29.11.2024. The said
order passed by this Court vide Annexure G reads as under:
” ORAL ORDER
In all these matters, petitioners who are stated to
have been appointed as forest watchers in the respondent
– Department assert that they have been working for a
long period of time and have completed 10 years as on
10.04.2006.
2. The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ
in the nature of mandamus to consider the claim of
petitioners for service benefits in terms of the Karnataka
Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (for short ‘2012
Act’) by recording a finding that they are eligible for the
benefit under the Act for the services rendered over a long
period of time. Petitioners have also sought for issuance
of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the
respondents to pay monthly payment of Rs.1,000/- from
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026HC-KAR
2009 and Rs.2,000/- from 2012 as per the Government
Orders dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012 vide Annexures
B and C respectively.
3. It is submitted that by virtue of coming into force
of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act,
2012, the provision under Section 2(a) would include daily
wage employees who have worked and completed not
less than 10 years as on 10.04.2006. It is further
submitted that in terms of Section 3 of the 2012 Act, the
employees engaged on daily wage are entitled to continue
till they complete the age of 60 years. It is also pointed out
that there are various other benefits provided under
Section 4 of the 2012 Act.
4. It is submitted that in W.P.No.29873/2024, the
Range Forest Officer, Kaggalipura Range, has addressed
a communication to the Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bangalore Urban Division vide Annexure-A and has
observed in the communication dated 30.10.2015 that the
petitioners have made a representation regarding their
long service and extension of benefit under the 2012 Act.
Such a proposal has been forwarded along with a
Schedule containing details of names of petitioners, dates
on which they have been engaged on daily wage basis
and other details including the place at which they have
worked as well as the emoluments drawn by them.
5. In other connected matters also, similar
communications have been addressed by the concerned
officer to the Authority.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo
along with the table indicating the names of the
petitioners, the serial number found in the schedule, the
date of such employee having joined service. The said
table is provided as hereunder:
W.P.No. Petitioner Sl.No. of Joining Date Total Length
the of service
Petitioner
in the
Schedule
of
Annexure
-A
29873/2024 Muniraju 1 01.07.1994 30
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026HC-KAR
“-” Krishnappa 6 01.07.1994 30
28996/2024 Channabasappa 6 01.10.1995 * 29
KS
“-” Lakshman Naik 2 01.07.1990 34
29220/2024 Paramesh 1 01.09.1992 32
“-” Anjinappa 6 04.01.1990 34
“-” Sanjeevayya 2 01.04.1989 35
“-” Siddaraju N C 7 09.07.1995 29
“-” Honnayya 3 01.04.1996 28
29221/2024 Erabhadra 4 01.12.1995 29
“-” Lokesh M 2 01.10.1995 29
“-” Gopal 1 01.12.1995 29
“-” Javaregowda 3 01.12.1995 29
“-” Venkatesha J 5 01.04.1995 29
“-” Lingappa 8 04.02.1996 28
“-” Ganesh J K 7 01.03.1996 28
“-” Prasanna S 6 01.04.1996 28
“-” Ramesha P B 10 01.04.1996 28
“-” Shivaswamy 1 23.11.1995 29
“-” Kumara 9 01.07.1995 29
“-” Ramesha A B 2 01.02.1996 28
“-” Rajanna A 1 01.02.1996 28
29682/2024 Kumar ** 01.03.1995 29
“-” Thammegowda 2 01.03.1994 30
“-” Jayarama ** 01.03.1995 29
“-” Shivalingappa 1 01.11.1995 29
“-” Kumara D ** 01.03.1995 2929722/2024 Palaiah 3 01.01.1995 29
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026HC-KAR
“-” Govindappa B 1 01.01.1995 29
“-” Thippeswamy M 4 01.01.1992 32
29734/2024 Prakash H R 1 01.01.1996 2829894/2024 Nataraja V 1 26.06.1995 29
“-” C. N. 7 26.06.1995 29
Shankarappa
“-” Ravanappa 2 26.06.1995 29“-” Erappa 6 26.06.1995 29
“-” Shankarappa 5 26.06.1995 29“-” G. N. Chalapathi 8 20.09.1995 29
31234/2024 Eshwar 3 01.04.1985 39* as averred in the petition
** Insofar as Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in
W.P.No.29682/2024 are concerned, their names were
recommended by way of a separate proposal as per
Annexure-E dated 22.11.2023.
7. It is accordingly submitted that a perusal of the
date of joining in service would indicate that they have
completed 10 years of work and accordingly are eligible
for benefits under the 2012 Act. It is also submitted that
apart from such request made, the petitioners are also
eligible for payment in terms of the Government orders
dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012 vide Annexures B and
C respectively.
8. Taking note of the same, case is made out to
direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioners
in light of the communication at Annexure-A in all the writ
petitions made by the concerned officer to the Authority
giving necessary details regarding the length of service.
Accordingly, respondent – Authorities are directed to
consider the request of petitioners as made out in
Annexure-A in accordance with law. Respondents are also
directed to consider the request of the petitioners for
extension of payment in terms of the Government orders
dated 11.06.2009 and 31.07.2012. Such consideration to
be made within a period of 3 months from the date of
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026
HC-KAR
receipt of certified copy of this order. All contentions are
kept open.
9. In light of the above, petitions are disposed off.”
4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite
the aforesaid order passed by this Court, which had attained
finality and become conclusive and binding upon the
respondents and filing of contempt proceedings in CCC No.464
of 2025, respondent No.4 issued common endorsement dated
01.09.2025 to the effect that the petitioners’ services cannot be
considered under the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees’
Welfare Act, 2012, since the notification under the said Act had to
be issued within one year from the date of commencement of the
said Act, which came into force on 15.02.2013 and the said
notification not having been issued to the petitioners within the
aforesaid period of one year, the petitioner would not be entitled
to the benefits under the said Act.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, the
petitioners are before this Court, inter alia contending that in
relation to identically /similarly situated Daily Wage Employees,
the State Government has extended the benefits even after the
lapse of more than one year and on the ground of parity, the
impugned endorsement deserves to be quashed and the
petitioners would be entitled to similar benefit. It is also submitted
that having regard to the fact that aforesaid Karnataka Daily
Wages Employees’ Welfare Act, 2012 is a welfare piece of
legislation and has been enacted with the intention of extending
the benefit to Daily Wage Employees, the inaction on the part of
the State Government to issue a notification extending the benefit
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026
HC-KAR
to the petitioners could not have been made the basis to issue
the impugned endorsements dated 01.09.2025 vide Annexures
H, H1 to H12, which deserve to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no
merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
8. As noticed supra, in the earlier round of litigation,
this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioners would
be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Act, which is
undisputedly a beneficial piece of legislation. As rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the mere
inaction on the part of the respondent – State to issue a
notification extending the benefit of the said Act to the petitioners
also could not have been made the basis to deny / deprive the
entitlement of the petitioners from the benefits under the said Act
and especially when the respondents themselves have extended
the benefit to similarly / identically situated Daily Wage
Employees even after expiry of one year, as can be seen from
Annexure – F dated 29.05.2014.
9. Under these circumstances, by invoking /applying
the doctrine of parity, I am of the view that the impugned
endorsements deserve to be quashed and respondents are to be
directed to extend the benefits of the Karnataka Daily Wages
Employees’ Welfare Act, 2012 in favour of the petitioners and
grant all benefits flowing therefrom within a stipulated time frame.
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is thereby allowed.
(ii) The Impugned Annexures at H, H1 to H12 are
hereby quashed.
(iii) The respondents are directed to grant the benefits
including monetary benefits under the Karnataka
Daily Wages Employees’ Welfare Act, 2012, in
favour of the petitioners within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
4. Under these circumstances, the present petition is also
disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court.
5. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed;
ii. The impugned endorsement dated 22.12.2025,
passed by respondent No.4, at Annexure – H is hereby
quashed.
iii. The respondents are hereby directed to grant the
benefits including monetary benefits under the Karnataka
Daily Wage Employees’ Welfare Act, 2012, in favour of the
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:24752
WP No. 15271 of 2026HC-KAR
petitioners within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGETMP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 78
CT:PH
