Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs C Prema W/O Chikkasiddaiah on 18 January, 2010
Bench: Manjula Chellur, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 18*" DAY OF JANUARY,I_20'3;T)j~--:5 _
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRs.3USTICEZMANJTQLA--c}¥1.E'LLo'T:§:~-TE,___
A.Nt>___ V _
THE HON'BLE EVER, JUSTICE GOWDA
WRIT APt=>E'AiL_;;a:Q__.;:;1 -REo) N
BETWEEN: 'T " 1'
The Commissioner, . «. A
Bru hat» Bzmg Aai-ore" f%21aha--na-ga ra "'Pa'H'ke,
NR Sq?uare,. JV.'C.;R.o_a'c£, -- '
Bangaiore' :~ 550' T' .
Represer.t_e"d,by Head ofthe Legai Ceii.
- APPELLANT
(By .S'r'é.R.Subra_m'a'nya', Adv. for M/s. Ashok Haranahalli
AV_s§«ocja'te$, Ad\"/5.») .....
TA;r\_:p; E "
i'...Smt; '('3.V--.":A~'*'*.rV&.é1'u'VrV1a, W/o. Sri. Chikkasiddaiah,
"-Aged' :'364T'~s/ears,
Re.sid:ing at No.793, NGO's Colony,
T T Kamalanagar, Bangalore ~ 360 079.
'W'&0rking as Teacher in Shishuvéhara at
" ~».K.amafanagar, Govt. Higher Primary School,
Kamalanagar,
Bangafore -- 560 079.
2. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary to
Municépai Administration,
M.S.BuiEdirig,
Bangaiore -- 560 001.
(By Sri.D.V.Jayi<urnar, AGA for R2)
This appeai is fried under Secti'o--n. 04 th'e0"i<arVna'.t'akia.é
High Court Act praying to set aside the order "p.as-sed"%.n_ the.
writ petition 22270/2005 dated 10.:Q7.'.-"Z006. " it
This appeal coming on-..fio"r._%preiEm_in'ary",hVea4ri'ng"jthisit
day, VENUGOPALA GOWDA, 3, defiv-erect foriowgng;
1" respondent herein' h:.ad:jt'E.i'ed_ a"vvrit petition against
the ap..p'ei'ivant"j;'anEi¢§:.;the'=..2"F" responzdent, with a prayer to direct the" writ petition, to regufarise her service--.._yvirthV'effe~_cit'«.§-rom 06.11.91, fix her pay and aEioW1ancAe:~VVton par..__w.i.th other teachers in the same cadre ":1rvtroi"king._v4"~.érr._fi'wghishuvihars' of the then Bangaiore B?Eah'anaVgar"a_Fiaiike and to pay safary of the petitioner with arrears :'fr.on14 01.01.2001. The writ petition was aiiowed by iifthei'-Eearined Singfe Judge by an order dated 10.07.06, ' yizhereby, the appeiiant was directed to proceed in terms of "the Eetter dated 16.11.99 issued by the Secretary to Government, Municipai Admtnéstration and to reguiarise E /' e' the service of the writ petitioner, fix her other teachers in the same cadre." 8 v\!~ee'i<s,':'w.ti'rn.e'-ywas granted for compliance. Said order ha-sbieend'iJesti'oriied"=i:n* this appeal. There is delay -of 1i'93'V'days'V:'iS'n;.f.i,l_Ving_:\§ appeal. E'/iisc.W.l1813/2009 ha1s'«.b:ee,n fiied sconfdone the delay.
2. Ba,ci;<i§3rouniiiacts: the filing of this writ a p p ea iy cloloid r :_ I No.1 herein, was provisio.na"iiy a teacher in 'Shishuvihar' attached - Vt3'o_yer,nm,ent Higher Primary School, Karniaiainiagar, U «iEi.an'galore~79, by the then 'S.a'ne,guru'vana'ha!li Grama Panchayath, pursuant to a reS.o'iVutionA--.Vriat,éd 06.11.91. She reported to duty and was rend'e:ing._ service on consoiidated saiary. She has the V' 'S.jij~doai'i.fica'tion of a pass in S.S.L.C. with Pre--Primary ' Teacher's Training. The area wherein the said school was "located was included in the City Municipal Council limits of Pattanagere. The Pattanagere CMC addressed a ietter to it /..' the Welfare Officer in the then Bangaiore Mahan-agara Paiike (for short 'Corporation') on 27.08.97 to service of the petitioner. Correspondence" vwe'nt'"oV_n't "
endiessiv and the Corporation dici-"not--.tai<e to its foid. A ietter was submitted b§i'.he}_it¢ the Municipal Administration, Go--v_e'rr;ment.__oi,i<a:rri'at'a'i<'a}' for"
redressai of her grievance in.i-iresipionse to vv'ii'ich.,VEthe said authority sent a communi'cat.iVc%'»n:' d'atVeVdV:L"1.6.11.99 to the Corporation. _ comrriunication, the CorpoivjationiididnVo:t.%pav°the_salary to Smt.C.Prema. The said airthoriitvi :_4'a«-._':p"'fLi.rther communication dated 03.112000utoflpthe Pattanagere, to takeover the «""adifiinis't:rat'ien of thewshishuvihar at Kamaianagar in which rendering service as a teacher and to mAa'i~ntai__n' thei Shishuvihar and pay saiary to the said CMC Pattanagere, transferred the service
--..rec.o.r'ds of Smt.C. Prema to the Corporation aiong with a in"-...,.i.etter dated 01.01.01. The Government sent a communication dated 31.07.01 to the Corporation and directed the Corporation to maintain the said Shishuvihar K /;
and to take action to pay the salary of Smt.C. Prema as directed earlier. The Head Master of the said Shishi..iyiha.r/ school also sent a communication dated _ Corporation requesting to releasemhtghe sa'i'a'i'y:'_o\F~..,.§mt.C. Prema. Yet, the salary and aiiowéancgers--r'were-not'paid Srnt. C. Prerna and her r'seryice"coVnditionsgwere}noted' recognised despite the orders and:_d~i.rectio'n«.si_issued by the Government. Hence. "«s..h'e_Af'i.iedj_'t'h"e--_':wri't._petition seeking aforesaid reliefs... _ V 9' was the respondent in the writ petition, 'vdid~__no_t"'fi.'i~e any statement of objections. Ma_tt3erEwas__hear'd«a_n_d'the writ petition was aliowed by the 'lea.'-ned._,4Singi:e' Judge directing the Bangalore Mahanagara Paiiikte as |:\é':l:E(}_.''-:iVS:"' 9' ,."ifh_eVresporiderit No.2 is directed to proceed in terms it * of the aforementioned letter dated 16.11.1999 and to reguiarise the 'services of the petitioner and to fix her pay on par with other teachers in the same cadre in Shishuvihars under its control. The respondent No.2 shaii comply with the sammivithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a",ce.rti.fi'ed I! copy of this order.
4. Pursuant to the direction issued -byj':t.he'-iearriegid Singie Judge, the appeiiant has 16.03.07 taking over the seryice Voffithe herein and has fixed nerV'Vi'i'»p3ai,r_Vat""R_s;3:,30'0/-- plus aiiowances. Fiirthei-,._4_.fs-heif'«bee'r.«.g_continued as a temporary teacher Corporation.
Appeiiant sou%_gh't';:;for a :cert_ifi'ed".co:p'y'o'f~---the order passed by the iearnevd. '1'2';0~?;f06 and got the sarne on 20.07.3306" 3 And: by the Corporation on 16.03.07,VV'itagkivngV' ovAe_r"thie service of the 15' respondent Snj*c;3C.fiif3rerna, 'f'i$<'in.g...her pay at Rs.3,300/- pins aiiowances and-.t0 ~p_a~y:h.e'r saiary.
SV_._>Th.eA315" respondent noticing that, the direction the iearned Singie Judge has not been compiied
-.yv'ith_..Aand that, there is no friii compiiance of the order, fiied 33 ..._a§contempt petition aiieging disobedience. This writ appeai was fiied on 23.11.2009. Delay of 1193 days has intervened in between. To condone the deiay, said misceiianeous application has been filed. Th-e"'--vr_easo4n stated for condonation of deiay is that, despite dated 16.3.2007 passed in favoiinofe153.:respondei:t1_g}%t:.e"it kept quiet and fried contempt .0'p.et§t_'ion 2009, the copy of which, w»eirvré~i..rpeceAi.Ved and-it hence necessary acti-opn was-~ toiifiie, appeai. Appeiiant admits that,'4'the'a'p_p,eaii have been fiied on or before.vfifst»..wee:_kmof §iep:te.rn.heVr, but the same isrnedcxp2joiI2oo9;t§r, "'6. 6' ,In'the~TCiircurn'stan_ce's, the point for consideration is, whetiie-rddthep'a~ppeiia«nt has made out sufficient cause to the in'ord.i__nate deiay of 1193 days in filing the ':ab9€aW"f*1
7..':£:i.,p'peiiant received the notice of the writ petition, ente"iie_d?~ appearance through counsel. Statement of V"'V'_AAi.o,i3.j,'ections were not fiied to the writ petition. Learned __5Singie Judge considered the writ petition and passed order on 10.7.2006. An appiication was fiied on 12.7.2006 to issue Certified copy and the copy was deiivered to the 'S /if action to file this appeal having arisen immediately upon passing of the order by the learned Single }udge..pa~n_d~.s_as admitted by appellant during the first week of. 2006, ie, excluding time takenyntoy obtai'n'v't.h'_ey"i:er'tifie:d 2 copy and the limitation period, ap'pejal«'iv_hich' on 23.11.2009 is inordine-'tel--y_V de'la._v'ed.V sufficient cause shown for condo-n:i_r'ig_» the"ino_rdinaite delay. This Court has always'«._a'dop'tedi_'a "litie'rai|_yyapproach in the matter of cond0nationv_.of».dfeia'y a'ri'ivy.acceptabie cause is shown._ ..iVsA3'«not«.,:the_ case herein. There is culpable negligenceéon'the"ip'art'*«--.o'f' appellant in filing the appeal. Thegreaoson 2e><pla'inind the delay can hardly be said to be isatisfacltory or even proper explanation for the i'---de.l'aVy" vhvy«~._tiheA'.i'-appellant. We are satisfied, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned supra, that by thew.-conduct of the appellant -- authorities, there is '' :iJndu''e delay, not commensurate with the facts situation in ..,_ti'ie case. Hence, we do not find sufficient cause having been made out to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ti;COi'idOi'3€ the deiay /2» .1 10 of 1193 days in filing the Misc.W.11813/2009 being devoiflclpp of 'V dismissed.
Since the appeal is by; the' application for condonation dis'n*1'iss'ed, as a necessary consequence,th_e appeal sétands" rejected. In ti_isJpo_sal main appeal, Mlsc.W.1 181,4/C2i3;Q9 for-s£é'ly,«. '§l'o"es'}noVt arise. Sd/-
JUDGE " ..... _ . sd/..
JUDGE sactijl/ksj.~ ~ Al