Karnataka High Court
Smt. N. Latha vs The Principal City Civil & Sessions ... on 25 July, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.39331 OF 2013 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
Smt. N. Latha,
W/o Sri. Chandrashekar,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.214, 'Kamala Nilaya',
4th Cross, Near Shri Venkataramana
Swamy Temple, Sarjapura Road,
Agara, Bengaluru - 560 102. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri.K. Raghavendra Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Registrar,
City Civil Court,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Kavitha H.C., HCGP for R-1 and R-2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
order dated 27.08.2013, passed by R-2, found at Ann-H &
-2-
further issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents
to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of
typist and further direct the respondents to regularize the
services of the petitioner from 1.8.1996 with all back wages
and with all consequential service benefits of seniority and
promotion, allow this writ petition.
This Writ Petition coming on for final hearing, this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed on 31.07.1996 as a Typist in the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru with effect from 01.08.1996, temporarily on contract basis under Rule-15 of Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. She had reported for duty and served as Typist till regularization of her services to the post. She had approached this Court in W.P.No.46249/2002 & connected matters, wherein it was directed to consider the matter if vacancies are available for the purpose of regularization.
2. Since the case was not considered, again the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in Writ Petition No.7041/2012, which was disposed of on -3- 30.03.2012 directing to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law. Again the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.15185/2012 C/w Writ Petition No.15186/2012 dated 21.03.2013, against the impugned endorsement dated 01.02.2012. The matter was remanded to respondent No.5 for fresh consideration, as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the said order was complied with by an order dated 27.08.2013 regularizing the services of the petitioner to the post of Process Server in the pay scale of Rs.11,000 - Rs.19,000/-.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The prayer of the petitioner is that she was appointed for the post of Typist (Group 'C') and instead of regularizing her to the same post, petitioner has been regularized for the post of Process Server (Group 'D'), which is the lower post in the cadre. -4- As such, it is the grievance of the petitioner that she ought to have been regularized in Group 'C' Post and not in Group 'D' Post. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to set aside the regularization of the petitioner's post from Process Server and direct the respondent to regularize her services for the post of Typist-Copyist.
4. Learned counsel for respondents has filed statement of objections and contended that as per the direction issued by the Supereme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS VS. M.L. KESARI & OTHERS - (2010) 9 SCC 247, to regularize to the lowest post of the cadre, which is Process Server for which the petitioner is entitled. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of her service for the post of Typist, for want of qualification. Hence, seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
-5-
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as Typist in the year 1996 on contract basis and continued to work, till regularization dated 27.08.2013, for more than 15 years. At this stage, regularization of service of the petitioner to the post of Process Server is nothing but something like demotion.
7. The reasons assigned by the respondents are that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, regularization has to be made to the lowest cadre and the person has to possess requisite qualification to the said post. The petitioner was appointed as a Typist on 31.07.1996 but as on that date she was not having requisite qualification to the said post. Under these circumstances, the lowest post is to be taken as to the post for which she was appointed. For the purpose of regularization, it is required to be looked into whether -6- the petitioner has possessed the said qualification as on the date of initial appointment in the year 1996, when the petitioner was appointed on contract basis. The requisite qualification for Typist was English Typewriting Senior Grade but the petitioner admittedly had possessed only English Typewriting Junior Grade. Under theses circumstances, the said qualification is applicable to the post of Typist-Copyist. Hence, the petitioner is to be regularized to the post of Typist- Copyist, since she was not having requisite qualification for the post of Typist. As she had possessed qualification only to the post of Typist-Copyist, her services has to be regularized to the post of Typist- Copyist.
8. Another prayer sought by the petitioner is for payment of salary from 1996 till the date of regularization, on par with the salary payable to the Typist-Copyist, what was applicable to the regular -7- employees in the cadre of Typist-Copyist the same should have been paid to the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for respondents contends that salary has been paid as per Notification dated 07.02.1958 of Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957.
10. It is admitted that the date of regularization is considered for the purpose of seniority and qualified service for the purpose of pension and other benefits. With regard to backwages and salary, any Act or Rule prevail or not, but Article 39(D) of the Constitution of India mandates the principle "Equal pay for equal work". It is undisputed that the petitioner had served for more than 15 years and she was paid a salary of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month and not the salary of a regular employee i.e., Typist. Under these circumstances, it is mandatory under Article 39(D) to enhance the petitioner's salary which has to be -8- computed on par with the post of Typist-Copyist salary and the same has to be extended from the date of appointment till regularization.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-H, stands modified.
Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the above order for regularization of services of petitioner to the post of Typist-Copyist subject to petitioner possessing requisite qualification to the said post and also to pay the salary to the petitioner as observed above.
The respondent No.2 to comply with the above order within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
-9-
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMC