Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs K Bhaghyalakshmi on 29 October, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO.15716 OF 2013 (S-KAT)
AND
WRIT PETITION NOs.39644-39649 OF 2013 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN :
1. The State of Karnataka
Rep by its Principal Secretary
Forest, Ecology and Environment
Department, M.S. Building
Bangalore-01.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests, Aranya Bhavan
18th Cross, Malleshwaram
Bangalore-3. ..Petitioners
(By Sri Pavan Kumar B. Bajentri, AGA.,)
AND :
1. K. Bhaghyalakshmi
D/o late K.V. Krishnaiah
Aged about 44 years
Typist, O/o Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests
-2-
Aranya Bhavan, 18th Cross
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-3.
2. Smt. B.S. Krithika
Aged about 54 years
Stenographer
O/o Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests
Aranya Bhavan, 18th Cross
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-3.
3. Smt. M. Mahadevi
Aged about 50 years
Typist
O/o Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests
Working Plans, Bangalore-13.
4. Sri B.L. Rajanna
Aged about 50 years
SDA., O/o Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (Wildlife)
Aranya Bhavan, 18th Cross
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-3.
5. Sri A. Anthony
Aged about 54 years
Group D Cleaner
O/o Chief Conservator of Forests
(Social Forests), Bangalore-3.
6. Sri M. Rajanna
Aged about 47 years
Group D Cleaner
O/o Chief Conservator of Forests
(Social Forests), Bangalore-3.
7. Sri K.M. Ravikumar
aged about 49 years
Driver
O/o Deputy Chief Conservator
-3-
Of Forests (Wildlife Division)
Hunsur, Mysore District-571105. ..Respondents
(By Sri S.V. Narasimhan, Adv., for C/R1 to R7)
These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the
impugned order dated 19.7.2012 in Appln No.1890/2007
and 1907-12/2007 on the file of the Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure-A.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.,
made the following:-
ORDER
The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, dated 19.7.2012 in O.A.Nos.1890/2007 and 1907-1912/2007, by which the services of the respondents herein are ordered to be regularized, is called in question in these writ petitions.
2. Respondents herein were appointed as daily wage employees against permanent sanctioned posts on 1.12.1984, 1.9.1985, 13.8.1986, 1.4.1987, 15.6.1987 and 1.6.1987 respectively as is clear from paragraph-3 of the impugned order passed by the -4- Tribunal. All the respondents were working in different posts such as Stenographer, Typist, SDA, Driver, Cleaner, etc. They had approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.13261- 13265/2006 praying for regularization of their services. The Tribunal directed the State Government to consider the prayer of the respondents in accordance with law. The said order of the Tribunal was questioned before this Court by filing writ petition. In the meanwhile, services of the respondents were regularized and consequently, the writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court with certain directions. The services of the respondents were regularized by the petitioners on 10.8.2006, 2.9.2006, 3.9.2006, 11.9.2006 and 10.8.2006 respectively based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others vs. Umadevi & others, reported in 2006(4)SCC 1. After passing of the order of regularization in favour of -5- respondents, the petitioners withdrew the order of regularization by passing another order dated 14.3.2007 on the ground that such order of regularization is passed on the directions of the Government dated 14.3.2007 as is clear from Annexure-A7 filed before the Tribunal. The said order of withdrawal of regularization passed by the petitioners was questioned before the Tribunal by the respondents herein by filing applications, which came to be allowed by the impugned order.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that the Tribunal is not justified in allowing the applications of the respondents, inasmuch as services of the respondents were continued by virtue of the interim order passed by the Court.
-6-
The said submissions are opposed by Sri Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. The petitioners' counsel who appeared before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal had clearly admitted before the Tribunal that the respondents were appointed against the vacant sanctioned posts in view of non-filling of posts by regular recruitment and he had also submitted that services of the respondents were regularized on the basis of the Circular dated 25.5.2006 upon considering their representation; and in view of the subsequent letter addressed by the Government to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 30.10.2006, once again the respondents were continued on daily basis. The only contention of the petitioners is that services of the respondents were continued based on the interim order passed by the Court.
-7-
Such submissions cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the respondents satisfied all the four conditions enunciated in Umadevi's Case. There is nothing on record to show that services of the respondents were continued in pursuance of the interim order of any Court. The interim order granted by this Court in WP.Nos.8192/1990 and 12610/1993 cannot be made applicable to the respondents herein, inasmuch as they were not parties to the said writ petitions. They were not even the members of the Association, which approached this Court in WP.Nos.8192/1990 and 12610/1993. Petitioners ought to have produced some material either before the Tribunal or before this Court to show that the respondents were continued in service as per the interim order of the Court, on the contrary, the petitioners herein who were respondents before the Tribunal, in their reply statement before the Tribunal had contended that the respondents have not individually approached the Court and have not -8- obtained any interim order before any Court against their termination. It was also admitted by the petitioners herein that the respondents have put in more than 20 years of service. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal is justified in concluding that nothing prevented the petitioners from producing any material before the Court or any instructions issued by any authorities to continue the respondents in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court. On the other hand, the respondents had produced reliable material to show that they were appointed as against sanctioned posts and they continued in service for more than 20 years in such posts. In view of the above, the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the request of the respondents need to be considered for regularization of their services and more so, when it is not in dispute that respondents herein are serving ever since 1994 till this day. Since the order of the -9- Tribunal is just and proper, no interference is called for.
Hence, writ petitions fail and accordingly, the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/nk-