Karnataka High Court
G.P.Ananda vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2018
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
WP NOS.14252-14268 OF 2017 (S-RES)
Between:
1. G.P. Ananda,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o Puttaswamy Gowda,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o City Municipal Council,
Arasikere, Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan District - 573 103.
2. A.R. Murlidhar,
Aged about 56 years,
S/o late B.R. Ramachandraiah,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o Rural Water Supply & Sanitation
Sub-Division, Nelamangala,
Bengaluru Rural District - 562 123.
3. C.N. Jagadeesha,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o C.R. Narayanappa,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o Tumkur Urban
Development Authority,
Tumkur - 572 101.
2
4. S.M. Veeragangadhara Swamy,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o K.M. Shivanandaiah,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o Shivamogga-Bhadravathi Urban
Authority, Shivamogga - 577 201.
5. Chandrappa,
Aged about 53 years,
S/o Dayaappa,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o City Municipal Corporation,
Haveri.
6. H.M. Ranganath,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o Murugendrappa,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o City Municipal Council,
Chitradurga - 577 501.
7. M.S. Raghunath,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o Sreeramulu,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o City Municipal Council,
Doddaballapur, Bengaluru
Rural District - 561 203.
8. K. Ramesh,
S/o Late Brahmalingachar,
Suma-Latha Nilaya,
8th Ward, Tungabhadra Bhudawane,
Huvina Hudagali,
Bellary District - 583 219.
9. V.P. Katewal,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
3
City Municipal Council,
Moondaragai - 582 118.
10. B. Raje Gowda,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o Boraiah,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o City Municipal Council,
Ramanagara - 562 117
Bengaluru Rural District.
11. K. Mahadeva,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o Katte Durgappa,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o City Corporation,
Bellary - 583 101.
12. Smt. Sheela S. Jogur,
Aged about 40 years,
D/o S.M. Jogur,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o Kalburgi Mahanagara Palike,
Kalburgi - 585 101.
13. M.R. Jayanna,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o M.S. Raje Gowda,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
Officer of the City Municipal
Council, Mandya,
Mandya District.
14. H.C. Ravindra,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o Channappa,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
Office of the City Municipal
4
Council, Chamarajnagar,
Chamarajnagar Taluk & District.
15. Rajendra Kumar D.R,
Aged 53 years,
S/o Jayappa,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
City Municipal Council,
Tiptur, Tumakur District.
16. A.R. Padmanabha Reddy,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o B. Rama Reddy,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o City Municipal Council,
Chintamani - 563 125.
Kolar District.
17. M. Abdul Hameed,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o M. Abdul Salam,
Working as Assistant Engineer,
O/o City Municipal Council,
Harihar - 577 601.
Davanagere District.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. M. Nagaprasanna, Senior Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary to Government,
Urban Development Department,
Vikas Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar
Veedhi, Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Commissioner & Director,
Directorate of Municipal
5
Administration, 9th Floor,
Visveshwaraiah Tower,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Respondents
(By Sri. Vijay Kumar Y. H., AGA)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 18.02.2017 at Annexure-M to W.P. passed by R-1
and grant all consequential benefits.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:-
ORDER
In the instant petition, petitioners have questioned the validity of the order dated 18.02.2017, passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were initially appointed on a daily wage basis under the scheme called Swarana Jayanthi Shahari Rozgar Yojana (for brevity 'SJSRY') in Urban Local Bodies.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that all the petitioners were graduates in 6 Engineering. Therefore, at the time of issuing the order of appointment, they have been extended consolidated pay of `6,000/- whereas, `4,575/- was extended to the diploma holders. On 08.07.2004, Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2004 (for brevity 'Rules, 2004') was notified to the post of Assistant Engineers and the required qualification was one must be a holder of Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering. The post of Assistant Engineer is required to be filled 75% by direct recruitment and 25% by deputation. For the purpose of direct recruitment, one must be a holder of Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering or AMIE in Civil from an institution recognized by Government.
4. The State took a policy decision to absorb Engineers, who were appointed under the Scheme 'SJSRY', by issuing an Absorption Rules called Karnataka Municipalities (Absorption of the employees appointed under the scheme of Swarna Jayanthi Shahari 7 Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) in Urban Local Bodies) - Rules 2005 (for brevity 'Rules, 2005'), notified on 28.10.2005. In the Absorption Rules, names of the petitioners have been incorporated in the cadre of Junior Engineer. Thereafter, petitioners have approached the concerned officials to get it rectified, so also pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Engineer, which was the subject matter of Government Order 18.02.2017, whereby, the order dated 29.11.2007 has been cancelled, which is the subject matter of these petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that having regard to the Rules, 2004 for the post of Assistant Engineer read with educational qualification of each of the petitioners that they are holders of Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering, they are entitled to be absorbed in the cadre of Assistant Engineer and pay scale attached to the post. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.02.2017 cancelling the order dated 29.11.2007, is illegal and arbitrary. 8
6. Gist of the matter of the present petitions is whether petitioners are entitled to the pay scale for the post of Assistant Engineer and order dated 18.02.2017, could be interfered by this Court or not? Undisputedly, petitioners were absorbed in the Rules, 2005, against Junior Engineer post. Thereafter, petitioners have not questioned the validity of incorporating their names in the cadre of Junior Engineer and even to this day. That apart, there is no amendment to the Special Rules, 2005 modifying/incorporating the Junior Engineer from that of Assistant Engineer.
7. In the absence of challenge to Rules, 2005 or modification of Rules, 2005, to the extent that petitioners are absorbed in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, petitioners are not entitled to hold the post of Assistant Engineer unless and until petitioners enter into the cadre of Assistant Engineer. They are not entitled to any service benefits in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. That apart 9 petitioners have slept over the matter for about 12 years. Accordingly, no interference is called for in respect of the impugned order dated 18.02.2017.
8. Accordingly, petitions are rejected. Petitioners are at liberty to challenge Rules, 2005 in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds/-