Karnataka High Court
Smt. Venkataramanamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1330
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION Nos.19951-20067 OF 2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VENKATARAMANAMMA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2. MR VENKATESH
S/O KONDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
3. MR PENCHALAIAH
S/O NAGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4. SMT NARAYANAMMA
W/O MR VENKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
5. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
6. SMT CHINNAMMA
W/O MELOKODAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
7. MR AYODI
S/O MR GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2
8. MR R RAMAIAH
S/O MR THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
9. MR B RAMAIAH
S/O MR CHIKKAHANUMATHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
10. MR CHIKKANNA
S/O MR HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
11. MR KEMPAIAH
S/O MR THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 11 ARE
WORKING AT OFFICE OF THE
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BBMP, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
12. MR MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O MR MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
13. MR RAJA
S/O MR CHINNARAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
14. MR M MUNIRAJU
S/O MR MUTHYALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
15. MR TIRUMALLESHA
S/O MR GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
16. MR A DEVARAJULU
S/O HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
3
17. MR MANJU
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
18. MR K AMARANARAYANA
S/O MR KODANDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
19. SMT KOTESHWARI
W/O MR A NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
20. MR A NARASAIAH
S/O MR OBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
21. MR C RAJA
S/O MR MARANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
22. SMT KATAMMA
W/O MR NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
23. SMT SUMATHI K P
S/O MR KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
24. MR RAMACHANDRA G P
S/O MR PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
25. MR SOMASHEKAR
S/O MR DURGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
26. MR RAVI
S/O NARASIMHA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
4
27. MR H VARADHARAJU
S/O MR HUCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
28. MR SUBBAIAH V
S/O MR VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
29. SMT ALESHAMMA
W/O MR NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
30. MR NAGARAJU
S/O MR KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
31. SMT MARIYAMMA
W/O MR MACHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
32. MR LAKSHMAN
S/O MR MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
33. MR PATHAPPA
S/O MR NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
34. MR NARAYANA
S/O MR BHAVAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
35. MR SRINIVAS
S/O MR GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
36. SMT H ANJINAMMA
W/O MR SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
5
37. SMT S ANJINAMMA
W/O MR SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
38. MR SUBBAIAH
S/O MR SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
39. SMT ADIYAMMA
W/O MR RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
40. MR RAMESH
S/O MR. PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.12 TO 40 ARE
WORKING AT: OFFICE OF THE
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BBMP, PULIKESHINAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
41. SMT C TIRUPALAMMA
W/O MR RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
42. MR S GURUVAIAH
S/O MR BALA GURUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
43. MR VENKATARAJU
S/O MR KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
44. MR SYED MUSTHAK AHAMED
S/O MR SYED KASHIM
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
45. SMT JANAKI RAM
W/O MR NAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
6
46. MR K VENKATESH
S/O MR KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
47. MR DEVADHANAM
S/O MR RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
48. MR CHINNAIAH
S/O MR THIMMAPAL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
49. MR R RAVI
S/O MR RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
50. MR DYANIAL
S/O MR S VENKATESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
51. MR E RAVANAIAH
S/O MR RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.40 TO 51 ARE
WORKING AT: OFFICE OF THE
ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BBMP, K.G.HALLI
BANGALORE-560 045.
52. MR RAMALINGAPPA
S/O MR MYLARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
53. MR NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O MR JADLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
54. SMT ARATHI
W/O MR N CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
7
PETITIONER NOS.52 TO 54 ARE
WORKING AT: OFFICE OF THE
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BBMP, H.B.R. LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 045.
55. SMT RAVANAMMA
W/O MR LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
56. MR RAVANAIAH
S/O MR RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
57. MR MARAPPA
S/O MR NAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
58. MR LAKSHMAIAH
S/O MR NAGARAJU Y
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
59. MR NAGARAJU
S/O MR NARASIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
60. MR GOPAL
S/O MR VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
61. SMT KRISHNAMMA
W/O MR BALARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
62. SMT MARIYAMMA
W/O MR MUTHIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
63. SMT DHANAMMA
W/O MR NANJUNDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
8
64. MR G NARAYANSWAMY
S/O MR GANESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
65. SMT KAMAKSHAMMA
W/O MR KONDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
66. MR KESHAVA
S/O MR SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
67. MR KUMAR
S/O MR NAGARAJU Y
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
68. SMT V LATHA
W/O MR KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
69. SMT SATHYAMMA
W/O BALARAJA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
70. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
W/O MR NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
71. MR GOVINDA
S/O MR CHINNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
72. MR NARASIMALU
S/O MR THIRUPAL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
73. SMT VENKATAMMA
W/O MR RAVANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
9
74. SMT SHANTHAMMA
W/O MR KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
75. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O MR KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
76. MR. KARAGAPPA
S/O MR. DODDAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
77. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O MR. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
78. MR. H. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. MR. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
79. MR. NANJUNDA
S/O. MR. ANKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
80. MR. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. MR. GAVIRANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
81. MR. MUNIRAJU .K
S/O. MR. KONDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
82. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
S/O. MR. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
83. MR. B. MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O. MR. MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
10
84. MR. ANJINAPPA
S/O. MR. PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
85. MR. KRISHANA P.
S/O. MR. PUTHALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
86. SMT. D. ACHAMMA
W/O. MR. KONDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
87. MR. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O. MR. MUTHULU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
88. MR. SUBBAIAH
S/O. MR. SUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
89. MR. K. NARAYANAPPA
S/O. MR. KADRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
90. MR. HEMANNA
S/O. MR. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
91. MR. A. NAGABHUSHAN
S/O. MR. ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
92. MR. SRINIVASULU
S/O. MR. CHINNAKONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
93. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI
W/O. MR. MUNIRATHANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
11
94. SMT. MANJULA
W/O. MR. K. MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
95. MR. KRISHNA
S/O. MR. MUNIYA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
96. MR. DASHARATHAN
S/O. MR. APPADORAI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
97. SMT. SHARADHAMMA
W/O. MR. MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
98. SMT. C. JYOTHI
W/O. MR. LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
99. SMT. KUPAMMA
W/O. MR. RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
100. MR. R. PARUSHURAM
S/O. MR. RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
101. SMT. RANGAMMA
W/O. MR. MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
102. MR. K. MUNIRAJU
S/O. MR. K.T. KADIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
103. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
W/O. MR. MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
12
104. MR. B. NARASIMHA
S/O. MR. BACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
105. MR. N. RAJU
S/O. MR. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
106. MR. RAJA
S/O. MR. MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
107. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O. MR. KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
108. MR.RANGAPPA
S/O. MR. ANAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
109. SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O. MR. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
110. MR. NARAYANAPPA
S/O. MR. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
111. MR. V. RAMAPPA
S/O. MR. VENKATARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
112. MR. THIMMAIAH
S/O. MR. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
113. SMT. SAKAMMA
W/O. MR. HUCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
13
114. SMT. C. LALITHA
W/O. MR. CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
115. MR. NARASIMAHAMURTHY
S/O. MR. NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
116. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O. MR. GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
117. MR. NAGARAJU A
S/O. MR. ABBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
SL. NOS.55 TO 117 ARE
WORKING AT OFFICE OF THE
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BBMP, MARUTHI SEVA NAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560033. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE - 560002.
14
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560009. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 & R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2018
PASSED BY THE R-1, VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALLOW THIS
PETITION AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In the instant petitions, petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 21.02.2018 along with the communication dated 15.03.2018 at Annexure-A.
2. The petitioners who were all appointed as Poura Karmika on various dates, which are indicated in Annexure-L while sending the recommendation by respondent No.2 for regularization of their service on 27.08.2014. From perusal of Annexure-A, it is noticed that there is no discussion about each of the petitioners 15 and others with reference to criteria laid down in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 to the extent of one time regularization of such of those employees, who have completed 10 years of service and other criteria. In other words, it is non-examination of service particulars read with the criteria stipulated in the Umadevi's decision. Therefore, on the ground of non-application of mind in issuing the order dated 21.02.2018 read with 15.03.2018 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Union of India Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290 at para 18 to 20 held as under:-
"18. It is of relevance to consider the directions rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (3). P.K. Balasubramanyan, J., speaking for the Court, held thus: (SCC p.42, para
53) "53. ... In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their 16 instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
19. The directions issued in Umadevi (3) have been considered by subsequent Benches of this Court. In State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the "one- time measure" prescribed in Umadevi (3) must be considered as concluded only when all employees who were entitled for regularization under Umadevi (3), had been considered R.V. Raveendran, J., who wrote the opinion of the Court, held: (M.L. Kesari case, SCC pp.250-51, paras 9-11) 17 "9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.
10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts.
Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3), will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one- time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six- month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad 18 hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one- time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service.
Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not
perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointement. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3)] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, 19 possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above direction in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure."
20. The judgment of this Court in Umadevi (3) does not preclude the claims of employees who seek regularization after the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some employees, provided that the said employees have completed the years of service as mandated by Umadevi (3). The ruling casts an obligation on the State and its instrumentalities to grant a fair opportunity of regularization to all such employees which are entitled according to the mandate under Umadevi (3) and ensure that the benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent regularization of employees who have completed the requisite period of service is to be considered as a continuation of the one-time exercise."
3. In view of the principle laid down in the Umadevi's case read with the aforesaid decision, 20 respondent No.1 is hereby directed to examine and take a decision whether each of the petitioner is entitled for one time regularization in terms of Umadevi's decision or not, while considering their eligibility with reference to four criteria mentioned in the Umadevi's case.
4. In the event of any service particulars of the petitioners are required to be examined by respondent No.1, in such circumstances, respondent No.1 could ask respondent No.2 to furnish Annexure-L dated 27.08.2014, which reveals the date of entry into service and date of completion of 10 years of service. Further, if any records are required, it is for respondent No.1 to get and take a decision. Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pass a detailed order considering each of the petitioners' service particulars read with Umadevi's decision read with Union of India's case cited supra.
215. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, writ petitions stand allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM