Karnataka High Court
Smt G J Parimala vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2013
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
WRIT PETITION NOS.38801-805/2013(S-KAT)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NOS.37949-953/2013(S-KAT)
In W.P. Nos.38801-805/2013
BETWEEN :
1. Smt.G.J.Parimala,
W/o.Sri.R.Sreenath,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Dasanapura,
Bangalore.
2. Sri.G.Mohan Kumar,
S/o.Late K.G.Gowda,
Aged about 45 years,
Working as First Division
Assisant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Dasanapura,
Bangalore.
3. Smt.P.R.Rekha,
W/o.Sri.H.R.Channabasappa,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Malleswaram,
Bangalore.
-2-
4. Sri.Shashidhar N.Gantimath,
S/o.Late G.R.Nirupadri,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, J.P.Nagar,
Konanakunte Cross,
Bangalore.
5. Sri.S.Satish,
S/o.Late R.Sachidananda,
Aged about 43 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.K.H.Jagadish, Adv.)
AND :
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Inspector General
Of Registration and
Commissioner of Stamps,
7th Floor, BWSSB Building,
Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 002.
3. Sri.N.Devaraju,
S/o.Sri.C.Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 48 years,
Working as First Division
-3-
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore Urban District
PIN - 560 036.
4. Sri.T.Prakash,
W/o.Sri.Thimmaiah,
Aged about 52 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural District,
PIN - 562 111.
5. Sri.H.G.Basavaraju,
S/o.Late Gangadharaiah,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar,
Madanayakanahalli,
Bangalore - 562 123.
6. Sri.h.T.Shivananjaiah,
S/o.Sri.Thammaiah,
Aged about 51 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore - 560 004.
7. Sri.R.Chandrashekariah,
S/o.Sri.Rudregowda K.,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Tavarekere,
Bangalore South Taluk
Pin 562 130.
8. Sri.K.S.Shivananda,
S/o.Sri.Shivamadegowda,
-4-
Aged about 51 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Pin - 560 058. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.S.Susheela, AGA for R1 & R2
Sri.Chandrakanth R.Goulay, Adv.
for R3 to R8)
. . . .
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
quash the order dated 06.06.2013, in application
bearing No.5602 & 5603/12 application bearing
No.5620 & 5621/12 and application bearing No.6401 &
6402/12 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore produced along with
these petitions as Annexure `E'.
In W.P. Nos.37949-953/2013
BETWEEN :
1. Smt.G.J.Parimala,
W/o.Sri.R.Sreenath,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Dasanapura,
Bangalore.
2. Sri.G.Mohan Kumar,
S/o.Late K.G.Gowda,
Aged about 45 years,
Working as First Division
Assisant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Dasanapura,
Bangalore.
-5-
3. Sri.Shashidhar N.Gantimath,
S/o.Late G.R.Nirupadri,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, J.P.Nagar,
Konanakunte Cross,
Bangalore.
4. Sri.S.Satish,
S/o.Late R.Sachidananda,
Aged about 43 years,
Working as First Division
Assistant, Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli,
Bangalore.
5. Sri.Fiaz Ahmed,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o.Shri K.Basheer Ahmed,
Second Division Assistant,
(Now promoted as FDA)
O/o.Sub Registrar,
Bangalore North Taluk,
14th Cross Road, 4th Phase,
2nd Stage, Peenya,
Bangalore - 560 058. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.K.H.Jagadish, Adv.)
AND :
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Inspector General
Of Registration and
-6-
Commissioner of Stamps,
7th Floor, BWSSB Building,
Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 002.
3. Sri.Syed Aleemuddin,
S/o.Late Syed Hussain Sab,
Aged about 50 years,
Working as Second Division
Assistant, In the Office of the
District Registrar,
Mahendra Complex,
R.T.O. Road, Chitradurga
Pin - 577 501.
4. Sri.A.Niranjan,,
S/o.Anjanappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Working as Second Division
Assistant, In the Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Chitradurga,
Pin - 577 501.
5. Sri.B.Hanumanthappa,
S/o.Basappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Working as Second Division
Assistant, In the Office of the
District Registrar,
Mahendra Complex,
R.T.O. Road, Chitradurga,
Pin- 577 501.
6. Sri.Bhaskarachar,
S/o.Sri.Puttachar,
Aged about 59 years,
Second Division Assistant,
(Now promoted as FDA)
O/o. Sub-Registrar,
Somwarpet,
Pin - 571 236.
-7-
7. Sri.M.Mahadevaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o.S.madaiah,
Second Division Assistant
(Now Promoted as FDA)
O/o.Sub-Registrar,
Gram Panchayat Building,
Ponnampet, Coorg Dist.
Bangalore South Taluk
Pin 571 216.
8. Sri. Shivayogi M.Jali,
Aged about 49 years,
S/o.Murigeppa,
Second Division Assistant,
(Now promoted as FDA),
O/o.Sub-Registrar,
Belgaum, Pin - 590 001.
9. Sri.Kumar Dada Babu Koli,
Aged about 53 years,
S/o.Babu Oli,
Second Division Assistant
(Now promoted as FDA)
O/o. Sub-Registrar,
Sadalga, Chikkodi Taluk,
Pin - 591 201.
10. Sri.Suresh M.Muthappagol,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o.M.N.Muthappagol,
Second Division Assistant
(Now promoted as FDA)
O/o. Sub-Registrar,
Athani, Belgaum District,
Pin - 591 304.
11. Sri.Mallikarjun R.Patil,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o.R.Patil,
Second Division Assistant
(Now promoted as FDA)
-8-
O/o. Sub-Registrar,
Belgaum, Pin - 590 001.
12. Sri.Rajashekhar Y.
Mukkannavar,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o.Y.Mukkannavar,
Second Division Assistant
(Now promoted as FDA)
O/o. Sub-Registrar,
Belgaum, Pin - 590 001.
13. Sri.S.S.Chavan,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o.S.Chavan,
Second Division Assistant
(Now promoted as FDA)
O/o. Sub-Registrar,
Ranebennur, Haveri Dist.
Pin - 581 115. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.S.Susheela, AGA for R1 & R2
Sri.Chandrakanth R.Goulay, Adv.
for R3 to R13)
. . . .
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
quash the order dated 02.12.2010 in Application
bearing No.7622 to 7624/05 passed by KAT, Bangalore
vide Annexure `C' and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for orders, this day,
N.Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These petitions are preferred challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal -9- allowing the applications filed by the respondents herein and directing respondents 1 and 2 to count the service of each applicant from the date on which his service was regularized in supernumerary post for the purpose of seniority and consequential benefits.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to before the Tribunal.
3. All the applicants were initially appointed on daily wages in various departments such as Sericulture, Irrigation, Forest and PWD on various dates. After the completion of service for 10 years, their services were regularized in the aforesaid Departments in supernumerary posts as there were no regular posts available in the said Departments. Subsequently, they were redeployed in the Department of Stamps and Registration. In the Provisional Seniority List prepared in the Department of Stamps and Registration on 16.02.2001, taking into consideration the date on which they were regularized in the supernumerary post, all of them were shown in the list above the candidates, who
- 10 -
were selected in the Department of Stamps and Registration subsequent to the date of regularization. The candidates employed in the said Department filed their objections. After considering their objections, the Final Seniority List came to be issued on 27.05.2005. In the said Seniority List, the date of their redeployment into the Stamps and Registration Department is taken into consideration and they were pushed down. Challenging the said Final Seniority List, some of them filed an application before the Tribunal in the year 2005 itself. After the said application was allowed granting the relief and when the same relief was denied to others, who were similarly placed, they also filed an application in the year 2012. The said applications are also allowed. Aggrieved by the said order these writ petitions are filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on Condition No.4 in the order of redeployment submits that notwithstanding Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Service Seniority Rules, 1957, it was made clear that for the purpose of
- 11 -
seniority, the date of redeployment would be taken into consideration. Therefore, while accepting such redeployment they agreed to such stipulation and therefore, it is not open to them to contend contrary to the same. Consequently, he contends that all the persons, who are affected and whose name finds a place above them were not made parties in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Insofar as the second batch of writ petitions are concerned, they are filed nearly seven years after the date of publication of the final list and therefore, the said writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. In support of his contentions, he relied on several judgments of the Apex Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for these redeployed persons contend that the stipulation in the said order is contrary to the proviso to Rule 1A read with Rule 6 of the Rules and therefore, it has to yield to the Rules. Consequently, he contends that the Tribunal has been consistently holding that in such cases of redeployment, it is not the date of redeployment but the
- 12 -
date of entry into service must be taken into consideration, which view has been upheld by this Court in the case of M.K.Mallikarjunappa and others V/s. State of Karnataka and others in W.P. Nos. 5134-5143/2012 decided on 3rd September, 2012. He further submits that the present case is also completely covered under the said judgment. Therefore, he submits that no case for interference is made out.
6. From the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, it is not in dispute that the applicants were all appointed on daily wages. However, after completion of ten years of service, their services were regularized. On the day their services were regularized in the Department where they were working as daily wagers, there were no sanctioned posts against which they could have been appointed. Therefore, supernumerary posts were created and they were permitted to work as against that post. However, after a couple of years, when vacancies arose in other Departments, all these persons, who were working in supernumerary posts after regularization, were redeployed in Department of
- 13 -
Stamps and Registration. Now, the question is for the purpose of seniority in Stamps and Registration Department, whether the date of redeployment is to be taken into consideration or the date on which they were regularized in supernumerary posts is to be taken into consideration?
7. The proviso to Rule 1A of the Rules reads as under:
1-A Nothing in these rules shall be applicable to any person appointed as a local candidate as long as he is treated as such:
Provided that where his appointment is treatment is regularized from any date, his seniority in the service shall be determined in accordance with these Rules as if he had been appointed regularly as per the Rules of Recruitment to the post held by him on that day.
8. The proviso makes it clear where appointment is treated as regularized from any date, his seniority in the service shall be determined in accordance with laws and the Rules as if he had been appointed regularly as
- 14 -
per the Rules of recruitment to the post held by him on that day. Therefore, the proviso makes it clear that when a person who was appointed temporarily or as a daily wager is regularized, it amounts to he being appointed regularly as per the Rules of Recruitment. His seniority is to be determined in accordance with such appointment. Rule 6 provides for transfer of persons in public interest. It provides that the transfer of a person in Public interest from one class or grade of a service to another class or grade carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for, the purposes of seniority of a person so transferred, shall be determined with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade from which he was transferred. Only in the event of such a transfer being made at the request of the Officer, then he will loose his seniority from the date of appointment and his seniority is to be accounted from the date of such transfer in the new cadre. As is clear from the proviso to Rule 1A Seniority in the service shall be determined in accordance with the Rules. This
- 15 -
categorically provides that when a person in service is transferred from one Department to another Department in Public Interest, it is not the date on which he is transferred, but it is the date on which his first appointment to the class or grade from which he was transferred is to be reckoned for the purpose of seniority.
9. In fact this Court had an occasion to consider the issue in the case of Mallikarjunappa referred to supra and it was held that for want of posts if persons are working in supernumerary post and once they are accommodated in the post, they carry with them the services held in the supernumerary post. They are not only entitled to monetary benefits, but also to the benefit of seniority. Persons in supernumerary posts cannot be excluded from consideration. In that view of the matter following the said decision, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order, which is in accordance with law.
- 16 -
10. Insofar as the contention that there is express stipulation in the order, the applicants have acquiesced and therefore they are estopped from contending contrary is concerned, the said stipulation in the order is contrary to the statutory provisions. Therefore, the said stipulation has to yield to the statutory provisions. Therefore, we do not see any substance in that contention.
11. Insofar as the contention that there is an inordinate delay in approaching the Court is concerned, the Final Seniority List was published on 27.05.2005. Immediately in the year 2005 itself, applications were filed. All of them were given relief. The same relief was not extended to others, who were similarly placed. Therefore, they filed applications in the year 2012. In the facts of this case, taking into consideration the number of years, we do not see any justification to deny relief to them, on the ground of delay and latches. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention with regard to delay also.
- 17 -
12. It was contended that all the parties, who were affected were not made parties and they are 300 in number. What was challenged by the applicants was the Final Seniority List prepared. Admittedly, their names were shown above all those persons working in the Department. However, considering their objections, the final list was prepared. Therefore, what is involved is the interpretation of law. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS