Karnataka High Court
The Joint Director Of Agriculture vs Smt Shankremma And Ors on 3 January, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200005/2021 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
1. The Joint Director of Agriculture
Office of Joint Director of Agriculture
Kalaburagi - 585 102
2. The Agriculture Officer
Agriculture Training Centre
Kotnoor (D), Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 102.
(Since defunct and closed in the year 2003)
... ...Appellants
(By Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, HCGP)
AND:
1. Smt. Shankremma W/o Sangappa
Aged about 67 years, Occ: Cook
R/o C/o Agriculture Training Office
Agriculture Teaching Centre, Kotnoor (D)
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 103
2. Ratnamma W/o Revansiddappa Dwar
Aged about 59 years, Occ: Cook
R/o C/o Agriculture Training Office,
Agriculture Teaching Centre, Kotnoor (D)
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 103
..... Respondents
(By Sri N.S. Deshpande, Advocate)
2
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order
of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.83563-
83564/2012, dated 06.03.2020.
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is filed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Office of Joint Director of Agriculture, Kalaburagi and the Agriculture Officer, Agriculture Training Centre, Kotnoor-D, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi, who were respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition Nos.83563-564/2012, assailing the impugned order dated 06.03.2020.
2. The respondents herein filed a writ of mandamus, seeking direction for regularization of their services with retrospective date of their appointments along with all consequential benefits including that of the continuity of service, full back wages etc.
3. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 06.03.2020 was pleased to allow the petition filed by the 3 petitioners and granted regularization of petitioners' services with retrospective effect from the date they have completed their ten years of service and also granted consequential benefits as are permissible in law. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed.
4. Heard Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Sri N.S. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The writ petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis as cooks in the Agriculture Training Centre under the present appellants and they had worked continuously for more than a quarter century. It was the contention of the petitioners that they worked satisfactorily and without any complaint and in spite of their request for regularization of their services, it has been rejected. The conduct of the petitioners is similar to that of the regular employees and the petitioners were allowed to work for more than two and half decades and sought to establish that the requirement of their service is on permanent basis.
4
6. The petitioners in the earlier round appears to have been illegally retrenched and they raised a dispute and the said dispute was allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 15.10.1992 and the petitioners were reinstated and their services were continued. It could also be seen from the records that the petitioners were not paid minimum wages as per the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the petitioners aggrieved by the non-payment of minimum wages had approached the authority and the authorities vide order dated 04.04.2006 had ordered for payment of wages in accordance with the Payment of Wages Act.
7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on merits and have served as cooks honestly without any adverse remark in their 27 years of service and the service of the petitioners was uninterrupted. The order of denial of benefit of regularization by the Government is discriminatory and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge, considering and deviating from the traditional approach has held that the petitioners fought the legal battle before the 5 Labour Court and before the authority seeking for minimum wages and also looking into the facts and circumstance has held that the petitioners are entitled for grant of regularization with retrospective effect.
8. Keeping in view Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 in Umadevi's case, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference by this Court and the present appeal filed by the appellants is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE LG