The Karnataka High Court has stayed a circular that sought to continue old minimum wages instead of implementing a revised minimum wage structure for employees of urban development authorities and the Directorate of Town and Country Planning.
A single-judge bench of Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad passed the interim order on Friday while hearing a writ petition filed by the All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU) on behalf of employees of the Directorate. The petition challenged the circular issued by the urban development authorities and the Directorate of Town and Country Planning.
The court stayed the operation of the circular dated October 9, 2026, until the next hearing. The order means the direction to continue the earlier minimum wage arrangement cannot be implemented while the court considers the petition. The report does not specify the revised wage rates, the earlier rates or the number of employees affected.
AICCTU’s petition was argued before the bench by High Court advocate Clifton D. Rosario. The challenge concerns the administrative decision to hold back the new minimum wage revision and retain the previous wage structure for workers linked to the Directorate and urban development authorities.
The court also directed notices to the state government’s chief secretary, the principal secretary of the Labour Department and the director of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning. These authorities have been made respondents in the case and are required to respond to the petition as proceedings continue.
Urban development authorities and town and country planning offices perform functions linked to the regulation and shaping of Karnataka’s cities and urbanising areas. Their work includes the administrative systems through which planning decisions, development permissions and urban expansion are managed. The wage dispute therefore concerns not only an employment order but also the functioning of public institutions responsible for urban administration.
The court’s intervention is an interim measure and does not finally decide whether the revised minimum wages must be implemented or whether the October 9 circular was legally valid. The report does not provide details of the government’s defence or indicate when the revised wage order was originally issued.
The case will proceed after notices are served on the state authorities and the Directorate. Further directions, including the authorities’ responses and the next hearing, will determine how the wage revision is handled for the affected employees.
