Karnataka High Court
Irappa S/O Suvrna Pattar vs State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11232
WP No. 104230 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 104230 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
IRAPPA S/O SUVRNA PATTAR,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. TNO,
TQ. NODAL OFFICER, ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VISHAL
signed by
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
HOUSING DEPARTMENT,
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.10.10
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
13:43:24
+0530
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING
CORPORATION LTD., NO.1234,
NORTH BLOCK, 4TH MAIN, 1ST FLOR,
I T PARK, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010,
NOW AT CAVERY BHAVAN, 9TH FLOOR,
E & F BLOCK, KEMPEGOUDA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSINER
CUM PRESIDENT, NIRMITHI KENDRA,
BELAGAVI-590001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11232
WP No. 104230 of 2023
5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI-590001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1, R2,
R4; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO SEND THE
ATTENDANCE REGISTRAR OF THE PETITIONER PERTAINING TO
SEPTEMBER 2019 TO TILL THIS DATE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this court seeking for the following prayer:
"I) Issue writ of mandamus by directing the respondent no. 4 to send the attendance registrar of the petitioner pertaining to September 2019 to till this date.
II) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.3 to release the salary of the petitioner as per the attendance registrar in the ends of justice. III) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including the award of costs in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Vijay M.Malali appearing for the petitioner; learned AGA Shri M.M. -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11232 WP No. 104230 of 2023 Khannur appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4; & learned counsel Shri V.Shivaraj Hiremath, appearing for respondent No.5.
3. The petitioner's claim to be appointed as Taluka Nodal Officer under the Scheme of Rajiv Gandhi Vasati Awas Yojane for the District of Belagavi in the year 2011.
Venting out several grievances, the petitioner and the like were before this Court in W.P. No.52194/2015, which comes to be dismissed by an order dated 22.09.2017. The said order of the learned Single Judge was called in question before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal. In the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench by its order dated 06.09.2019 directed that the employees like the petitioner and the petitioner should not be terminated from the service. The order reads as follows:
"The appellants/petitioners have made prayer for regularization/absorption of their services, since they have been appointed on contractual basis and are working from 2011 onwards. The appellants/petitioners have been appointed to the post of Taluk Nodal Officers. by and at the instance of the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited (the Corporation, for short) and as such they are working till today. When the appellants perceiving threat that their services may be terminated, filled writ petitions -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11232 WP No. 104230 of 2023 before this Court. which came to be dismissed. However, during the course of the writ proceedings, there was an interim order. After the dismissal of the writ petitions the appellants have preferred these writ appeals. This Court by order dated 28.09.2017, directed the respondents to take any further steps pursuant to the communication dated 26.09.2017, till the next date of hearing. The said Interim order stands extended from time to time.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the petitioners/appellants were appointed to the post of Taluk Nodal Officer under the Corporation. The alms and objects of the Corporation is to assist the State and Central Government in providing houses for the poor and houseless persons. The Corporation is entrusted with supervision of construction of the houses under various housing schemes of State and the Central Government Housing schemes, namely. Basava Vasati Yojane. Vajapeyec Nagar Vasat Yojane. Devaraj Urs Vasati Yojane. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Nivas Yojane, Pradanmanthri Awas Yojanc (R) Indira Awas Yojane), etc. The petitioners/appellants were Initially appointed under the scheme and as long as the scheme continues, their services may not be terminated. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relled upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehad. Abdul Kardir And Another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611, and drew the attention of this Court to the paragraph No.18. Wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
18. We are therefore of t..e view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad-hoc and temporary basis, conterminous with the scheme. The Circular dated 17.03.1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be quashed."-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11232 WP No. 104230 of 2023 It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court these appellants are required to be continued till survival of the scheme. If any attempt is made by the respondents to terminate services of the appellants who were initially appointed on temporary basis. It will be contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Plara Singh and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130. In the said case. Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.25 has hell that:
"...Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another- ad-hoc-or- temporary employee should not be replaced only by a regular selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority."
On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation seeks to Justify the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the appellants were neither appointed by the Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Limited nor was the appointment for any scheme of the It is submitted that the Corporation is registered under the Companies Act for implementation of the various housing schemes their duty is only to disburse funds allocated to various projects and supervisory authority and the Corporation has nothing to do with the scheme. The nature of the job of the appellants was only to take photographs of the construction work for the purpose of release of the amount to the beneficiaries and now the very job has been entrusted to the officers of the Taluk Panchayath and hence, their services cannot be continued. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the services of these appellants is no more required, since the object for which they have appointed are achieved and they are not working.
We have heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants and as well as Corporation and perused the materials on record.
The appointment of the appellants has been made by the Karnataka Nirmiti Kendra for Implementation of the various schemes. viz., Ashraya Grameena and Nagara -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11232 WP No. 104230 of 2023 Vasati Niveshanagala Yojane. Ashraya Grameena and Nagara Manegala Yojane, Dr.Ambedkar Vasat Yojane. Neralina Bhagya, etc. The appointment made by the Nirmiti Kendra, whether the same amounts to appointment made by the Corporation or the State Government remains to be decided. Nevertheless, since. from the date of appointment the appellants have been continued till the disposal of the writ petitions and on the dismissal of the writ petitions, the appellants approached this Court, this Court granted an Interim order dated 28.09.2017 and "respondents are directed not to take any further steps pursuant the communication dated 26.09.2017, ull the next date of hearing. As such these appellants are continued in the same posts. It is presumed that the interim order granted by this Court, remains complied by the respondent- Corporation.
Material has been placed before this Court to substantiate that the housing schemes are even enhanced today by constituting, which has been referred in 2017-18. scheme under which six schemes have been constituted and the same continues for 2017- 18. As the scheme. total construction and completion of houses for the poor and houseless persons are not yet completed. We take judicial notice from the materials available that it is the responsible of the State to provide shelter to the houseless persons. being the scenario, the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Corporation not to continue the services of the appellants cannot be accepted. In the light of the decisions referred above, we hold that the length of services of the appellants depend upon the length of the scheme. In the light of the above, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The respondents are directed not terminate the services of the appellants/ petitioners, till final disposal of these appeals and pay their remuneration.
Admit.-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11232 WP No. 104230 of 2023 Post these matters for 'Final hearing."
4. The allegation is now that despite passage of the order and continuance of the petitioner in the respective employment, they are not paid salary for last four years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition seeking to demonstrate that the petitioner is working without salary and therefore is knocking at the doors of this Court for a direction to the 4th respondent forthwith to send the attendance register to the 3rd respondent to enable the authorities to process their salary and its payment. The submission would merit acceptance in the teeth of the fact that the Division Bench had directed supra not to terminate the services of the petitioners and the petitioners on the strength of the order of the Division Bench are now continuing in the service. If the petitioners are continuing in the service and work is being extracted from them, it cannot be that the petitioner will not be paid any salary.
Non-payment of the salary to these petitioners and making -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11232 WP No. 104230 of 2023 them to work would amount to begar and hit by Article 23 of the Constitution of India as no person can be made to work without payment of salary. If the allegation of the petitioners are correct it would not behove, the status of the State being model employer to all the other employees in the State which are coming under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
6. Therefore, for the aforesaid reason, the petitioner is entitled for a mandamus to be issued by this Court to the 4th respondent to send the attendance register of the petitioner and the like from September 2019 after the passage of interim order supra till this date forthwith within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if not earlier.
7. In the event, the petitioner and the like are found to be working pursuant to the interim order granted by the Division Bench supra, the salary shall be paid by the 3rd respondent to all those persons who are working and -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11232 WP No. 104230 of 2023 not drive the every employee to the Court for suitable direction.
Sd/-
JUDGE vnp*/ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53