Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayan Basappa Bajantri vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 06 t h DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.4961 of 2008 [S-R]
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARAYANA BASAPPA BAJANTRI
S/O. SRI BASAPPA BAJANTRI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RETIRED DRIVER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KARWAR
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.'S:
1A. SMT. DRAUPADI W/O. NARAYAN BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 54 YEARS
1B. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O. NARAYAN BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 34 YEARS
1C. SRI SURYAPRAKASH S/O. NARAYAN BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
1D. SRI UDAY S/O. NARAYAN BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
1E. SMT. REKHA @ PALLAVI
W/O. SUNIL YERAGATI,
:2:
AGE: 28 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O. SHEJWADA, TALUK: KARWAR,
DIST: KARWAR.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. J.S.SHETTY ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ
DEPARTMENT, SACHIVALAYA - II,
M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 01
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
KARWAR
... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT.MEGHA C.KOLEKAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R3;
SRI ANANTH R. HEGDE ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING T O:
1. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DT.
17.9.2007 OF THE R2 VIDE ANNEX.H.
2. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE
SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE HE
COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE AND GRANT
HIM ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS OF
ARREARS OF SALARY, PENSION, GRATUITY ETC.,
:3:
This Writ Petition coming for preliminary
hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Sri. Naryana Basappa Bajantri, the petitioner, having studied upto 3 r d standard and having had a driving licence, was appointed on daily wages as a driver by respondent No.2. He filed Writ Petition No.14894/2002 to direct the 2 n d respondent to consider his case for absorption in regular service as driver in Zilla Panchayath, Karwar, U.K. District, with effect from the date he completed ten years of service i.e., 15.06.1987 and extend the consequential benefits. The writ petition, by an order dated 17.09.2004, was allowed and the endorsement, marked as at Annexure 'K' in the writ petition, was quashed. Respondent No.2 was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in the light of the law declared by the Court in various judgments and subject to :4: petitioner satisfying the conditions stipulated in the orders.
2. The said order was assailed in W.A. No.1465/2005 by the respondents. Noticing that, identical matters were pending consideration before the Apex Court and the same having been referred for consideration in Civil Appeal No.1861- 2063/2001 and other connected cases, the writ appeal was disposed of with a direction to the appellants to keep the claim of the petitioner pending, till such time the matter is decided by the Supreme Court and then decide his claim in accordance with the decision rendered by the Apex Court. The matters having been decided by the Apex Court, as per the decision of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMA DEVI (3) AND OTHERS reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, the claim of the petitioner was taken up for :5: consideration and an endorsement dated 17.09.2007, as at Annexure 'H' was issued, informing the petitioner that there is no possibility of regularisation of his service. The petitioner, having attained the age of superannuation, was relieved on 31.12.2007. This writ petition was field on 25.03.2008, to quash the endorsement as at Annexure 'H' and direct the respondent to regularise his service and extend consequential benefits.
3. The petitioner having died on 23.05.2009, his wife and children filed an application to come on record. Same having been allowed, the wife and children of the deceased petitioner, are prosecuting this writ petition.
4. Sri.J.S.Shetty, learned advocate appearing for the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner contended that the :6: endorsement as at Annexure 'H' is arbitrary and illegal. Learned advocate submitted that the juniors to the deceased petitioner were regularised in service and have been extended with service benefits and in the circumstances, there is discrimination. Learned counsel further submitted that the grounds on account of which the regularisation was not made, shown in the endorsement at Annexure 'H', is factually incorrect and that the decision taken by respondent No.2 is arbitrary.
5. Sri.Anant R.Hegde, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2, on the other hand, made submissions in support of the decision taken and communicated to the petitioner as at Annexure 'H' and sought dismissal of the petition.
6. Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, learned HCGP, accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 :7: and submitted that in view of the ratio of law laid down in the decision rendered in UMA DEVI's case (supra), a circular dated 13.11.2006, as at Annexure 'G', was issued and that that the 2 n d respondent having taken note of the decision in the case of UMA DEVI (supra) and the Circular dated 13.11.2006, has issued the endorsement at Annexure 'H' and the same being justified, no interference in the matter is warranted.
7. Perused the writ petition papers.
8. Indisputedly, the petitioner joined service as a daily-wager. W.P. No.14894/2002 filed by him was allowed on 17.02.2004. The said order was questioned in W.A. NO.1465/2005. The respondents were directed to keep the claim of the writ petitioner pending till such time the matters are decided by the Supreme Court and then decide the claim in accordance with the decision rendered :8: by the Apex Court. It was made clear that the service of the writ petitioner shall not be terminated except for misconduct.
9. The matters pending before the Apex Court having been decided as per the decision reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 [supra], the Government issued Circular dated 13.11.2006, as at Annexure 'H. In view of the mandate in the said writ appeal, the claim of the writ petitioner having been examined, the endorsement as at Annexure 'H' has been issued. The petitioner does not fall within the exception carved out by the Apex Court in para 53 of the decision reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 [supra]. Consequently, the respondents are justified in issuing the endorsement as at annexure 'H'. No exception can be taken for the decision taken by the respondents, as at Annexure 'H'.
:9:
In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, learned HCGP, is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-