Karnataka High Court
K B Ranjitha vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2021
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.14476/2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
K.B. RANJITHA
D/O. LATE K.N. BIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
MARAGODU VILLAGE AND POST
MADIKERI TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHARAN KUMAR K.V., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE
NO.49, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR
2. DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE
NO.49, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
2
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. GOVERNMENT CENTRAL WORKSHOP
MADIKERI - 571 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI - 571 201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order dated 17.01.2018, by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been turned down.
2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Charan Kumar K.V., appearing for the petitioner and the 3 learned AGa, Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, appearing for the respondents.
3. The father of the petitioner, who was employed as a Peon on works services rolls with respondent No.2, died in hardness on 28.12.2010, after which, the petitioner on 15.07.2011 made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, which came to be turned down by the respondents by an order dated 17.01.2018 on the ground that the father of the petitioner was not a regular employee of respondents No.2 and 3, he was only on works service like all other employees.
4. Compassionate appointment is granted only to the kith and kin of regular employees and not employees, who are on work charged establishment or work services rolls.
45. The law in this regard is settled with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTEHRS VS. AMIT SHRIVAS reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496 : 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 789, wherein the Apex Court has held that compassionate appointment would not become available to the employees, who are not regular employees or employees, who are work charged establishment. The Apex Court, has held as follows:
"15. In our opinion, the only issue which has to be examined is whether the late father of the respondent who admittedly was employed as a work- charged/contingency employee in the Tribal Welfare Department was entitled to the compassionate appointment as per the existing policy on the date of his demise.
17. In our view, the aforesaid plea misses the point of distinction between a work-charged employee, a permanent employee and a regular employee. The late 5 father of the respondent was undoubtedly a work-charged employee and it is nobody's case that he has not been paid out of work- charged/contingency fund. He attained the status of a permanent employee on account of having completed 15 years of service, which entitled him to certain benefits including pension and krammonati. This will, however, not ipso facto give him the status of a regular employee.
19. We are not required to labour much on the aforesaid issue and really speaking this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray, which opined that a "permanent" classification does not amount to regularisation. The case dealt with the aforesaid Standing Orders and it has been observed in paras 24, 26 and 27 as under: (SCC pp.453-54) "24. It is, thus, somewhat puzzling as to whether the employee, on getting the designation of "permanent employee" can 6 be treated as "regular" employee. This answer does not flow from the reading of the Standing Orders Act and Rules. In common parlance, normally, a person who is known as "permanent employee" would be treated as a regular employee but it does not appear to be exactly that kind of situation in the instant case when we find that merely after completing six months' service an employee gets right to be treated as "permanent employee".
Moreover, this Court has, as would be noticed now, drawn a distinction between "permanent employee" and "regular employee".
26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a "permanent employee" has right to receive pay in the graded pay scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments, etc. in the pay scale.
727. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioners in these contempt petitions. We are conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier occasions, the State Governmetn while fixing the pay scale, granted increments as well. However, if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms (see ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan)".
20. The conclusion to be drawn from the aforesaid is that attaining the status of permanent employee would entitle one only to a minimum of the pay scale without any increments. It is this aspect which was sought to be emphasized by the learned counsel for the respondent to contend that this would not apply, because in the present case, krammonati and increments were given. However, we may note that in 8 the order dated 7-2-2002 granting the benefit of monetary krammonati to employees, including the respondent's father, it was specified that the same would not affect the posts of such employees.
21. The moot point, thus, is that having been granted increments, could a person be said to have reached the status of a regular employee? In order to answer this question, we may note that while considering this aspect in the aforesaid judgment, it was specifically opined that even "if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in the negative terms". We say so, not with the objective of giving a licence to the appellants to withdraw any of the benefits, which are already granted, and we make this unequivocally clear. However, we cannot at the same time make a conclusion that the status acquired is that of a regular 9 employee upon having achieved the status of a permanent employee in service.
22. Thus, the classification of the late father of the respondent as a permanent employee, and this distinction between a "permanent" status and a "regular" status appears to have been lost sight of in the impugned judgments."
6. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, no fault can be found with the order passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJK