Karnataka High Court
Neelappa Rayappa Satannavar vs The Managing Director on 12 March, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
3
consider their cases for absorption on pennanerut:basis'pjinte._. .
the {post of Drivers Gr~H held by "them, " " 22
consequential benefits.
2. The grievances of these petitioners they_}are >
working in the respondents their
duties as Driver Gr.H Aagflainst the clear vacant sanctioned by ' in the 3rd respondents been working for more than inspite of making several represe;Vntatiotisv5'V'_v requesting them to regularise their Grade-II and to extend the consequentiai yvbenefits, their request has not been _ ., gonsiéieiied by the respondents. Therefore, petitioners have "Court by filing writ petitions and those writ petitions _Were*:disposed of with directions. Thereafter also, reouest has not been considered by the respondents A "?_""'~«_.therefore, again, they have submitted their 2 representation on 25.2.2008 vide Annexure-Q to consider it their case for absorption on permanent basis into the posts of Drivers Gr.II as held by them with all other consequential benefits. But the said rep sentation is neither considered ////.
4 nor disposed of by the respondents so far. Therefore, petitioners have presented this petiton, seeking reliefs as stated supra.
3. I have heard learned counsel. appea,ring_ itlixelg parties.
4. After careful perusal rnateriais'-.:av'ai1ab1e on " V file, it emerges that, these pe'titio.n"ers"~h.ave' submitted their representation as ear1&¢:§h..cne_ Annexure--Q, but the same of by the respondentfggfo ..4,,i_t it is the case of the petitionersiithd-at:A_ as drivers Gr.II in the respondenrts .1997 against a clear sanctioned post. The of appointing the petitioners as V, the regularization of the Company, they are pressu_1bi2,in.g"'them to come through private contractor. It is of the petitioners that, even though this Court has-vissued directions to the respondents to consider their request as per communication forwarded by the third ' respondent therein, in the year 2007 in * »v.-W.P.No.18169/2OO7, their request has not been considered by the respondents. There re, petitioners have submitted