Karnataka High Court
Sri M.N Venkatesh vs The Chief Executive Officer on 22 June, 2022
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.51010/2012 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
Sri M.N.Venkatesh,
S/o.Nagendra Bhat,
Aged about 43 years,
Daily Wage Typist,
Taluk Panchayat,
Thirthahalli - 577 432,
Shimoga District.
... Petitioner
(By Sri K.B.Muralidhar, Advocate)
AND:
The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Panchayat,
Shimoga - 577 201.
... Respondent
(By Sri B.J.Eshwarappa, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent to
consider the representation dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure-A)
preferred by the petitioner for regularization of his services in the
interest of justice and equity in the eye of law.
This Writ Petition coming on Orders this day, the Court,
made the following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner stated to have been appointed as 'Typist' on daily wage basis on 22.03.1989 to the vacant post of Typist in the office of the Block Development Officer, Thirthahalli, Shimoga District. It is submitted that the petitioner having worked for a long length of time has sought for regularization by approaching this Court in W.P.Nos.42116-42253/2001 which came to be disposed off on 03.12.2001. This Court allowed the writ petition of the petitioner herein in terms of the law laid down in W.P.Nos.42096-42113/2001 disposed off on 29.11.2001. As against the order passed in W.P.Nos.42116-42253/2001, Writ Appeal came to be filed by the respondents in W.A.Nos.2598-2735/2002 which came to be disposed off on 14.10.2003 upholding the order of the learned Single Judge. As against the order passed in the Writ Appeal, the State filed SLP (cc) No.CC 4105-4242/2005 which came to be disposed off by the order dated 25.02.2008 which reads as follows;
"Delay condoned.3
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
We direct that in the light of para 53 of the decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC, 1 the case of these respondents, who have already completed more than 22 years of service, shall be individually examined by the authorities concerned. We hope and trust that the authorities will look into the individual cases and examine their continuation in service in terms of the schemes or other provisions of law on the subject available in the State. The authorities shall also take into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Poorna Chandra Pandey & Others (2007) 7 SCC, 374. However, till the individual cases are not scrutinized by the authorities, these respondents- incumbents will be allowed to continue in service.
With the above said observations, the special leave petitions stand disposed of."
2. It is submitted that subsequent to disposal of the SLP, the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected as per the Endorsement dated 19.12.2008 which is called in question in the present petition.
3. It is pointed out that recommendation was made as per Annexure- N by the office of the Taluk Panchayath, Thirthahalli recommending the case of the petitioner while 4 specifically recording a finding regarding fulfillment of four conditions required under law to consider his case for regularization in terms of the law laid down in Umadevi's case. It is further contended that the recommendation made by the Taluk Panchayath at Thirthahalli clearly records that petitioner's service is without protection of any interim order passed in any petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a copy of the order sheet pertaining to W.P.No.25154/1998 and submits that there was no interim order during the pendency of the said writ petition. It is finally contended that the reference to the interim orders in other writ petitions cannot be a bar for consideration of the petitioner's case in light of the direction by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which specifically observes that individual cases are to be looked into and accordingly, as long as there was no stay obtained in any petition at the instance of the petitioner, interim orders passed in other writ petitions with respect to general clause of daily wage workers cannot be a bar to consider this case. Reliance is 5 also placed on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.3025/2008 as regards the said aspect.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand reiterating the contentions submits that the petitioner no doubt, had worked for the requisite period of time, however, such continuation in employment was by virtue of the interim orders passed in other matters as is referred to in the impugned endorsement at Annexure- J. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that there is a Circular dated 13.11.2006 which needs to be looked into and refers to continuation of employees by virtue of the interim orders passed in the nature of general direction as regards class of daily wage workers. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petition is liable to be rejected. It is also submitted that there is requirement that the petitioner is to demonstrate he was working as against sanctioned post.
5. Heard both sides.
6
6. Insofar as the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court is concerned as passed in SLP (cc) No.4105- 4224/2005, the directions are clear and unambiguous and mandates consideration in light of paragraph No.53 of the decision in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC. There is a specific direction that individual cases are to be examined. Insofar as fulfillment of the criteria as laid down in Uma Devi's case is concerned, the recommendation by the office of the Taluk Panchayath, Teerthahalli at Annexure- N is self explanatory and the recommendation above would clearly indicate that petitioner's fulfillment of the four criteria required to be considered for regularization.
vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï PÀbÉÃj, wÃxÀðºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÀUÆ À ° ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀvð À ªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¢£ÀUÆÀ ° £ËPÀggÀ ÄÀ 04 µÀgÀvÀÄU Û ¼ À ÀÄ «ªÀgu À Á £ÀªÀÄÆ£É.
£ËPÀggÀ À 1.CAvÀºÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß 2.»ÃUÉ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 3.»ÃUÉ 4. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À CxÀªÁ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀAvÀºÀ £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄAqÀ°UÀ¼À DzÉñÀPÉÆ̼À¥ÀlÄÖ ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ: ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ SÁ° CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ 10 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ½UÀÆ ºÉaÑ£À CªÀ¢üUÉ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀµðÀ UÀ½UÀÆ ºÉaÑ£À CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹgÀ¨ÁgÀzÄÀ ªÀiÁrgÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ ¸ÀvÀvÀªÁV CzÉà «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆA¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ²æÃ.JA.J£ï. EªÀg£ À ÄÀ ß wÃxÀðºÀ½îà EªÀg£ À ÀÄß EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgg À ÀÄ EªÀg£ À ÀÄß ªÉAPÀmÃÉ ±ï, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¨Ég¼ À ZÀ ÀÄUÑ ÁgÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:27.03.1989 ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¨Ég¼À Z À ÀÄU Ñ ÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï ºÀÄzÉÝU£ É ÃÉ ªÀÄPÀ gÀAzÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À CxÀªÁ 7 PÀbÃÉ jAiÀÄ°è SÁ° ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, PÉ®¸ÀPÌÉ ºÁdgÁV £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄAqÀ°UÀ¼À EzÀÝ ¨Ég¼ À ZÀ ÀÄU Ñ ÁgÀgÀ ¨Ég¼À Z À ÀÄU Ñ ÁgÀgÀ ¸Àvv À ª À ÁV MAzÉà DzÉñÀ«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, 10 ªÀµð À UÀ¼À ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÀA:f¥ÀA² ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è 10 £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ SÁAiÀÄAUÉƽ¸À®Ä (4)vÁ¥À¸:À 185/88-89 ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ ªÀµð À UÀ¼À PÁ® PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÉÆgÉ vÁ.22.03.1989 gÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¹zÀÄÝ, FUÀ®Æ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹ ªÀÄ£À« ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgg À ÁV ¸À°¹è gÀÄvÁÛg.É f¯Áè¥A À ZÁAiÀÄvï ¨Ég¼À Z À ÀÄU Ñ ÁgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹ PÀbÃÉ j¬ÄAzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è F PÀbÃÉ jAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀg¢ É gÀÄvÁÛg.É ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀ¯ î ÁVzÉ
7. Insofar as any observation made at Annexure- J cannot be contrary to the findings at Annexure-N and the respondents are estopped from raising factual aspects contrary to the recommendation made at Annexure- N. The observation made while recommending is self explanatory including as regards the petitioner having worked as against the sanctioned post. There is no material contrary placed by the respondents to displace the recommendation that the petitioner has worked against the sanctioned post.
8. Insofar as the observations made at Annexure- J regarding continuance of the petitioner with reference to the direction passed in other matters, the matter does not call for any re-examination in light of the law laid down by the 8 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nagamani Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P. No.3025/2008 wherein, the similar contention regarding employee having worked under protection of interim orders passed in other matters was considered and rejected.
9. In light of the order passed in Nagamani's case, contention of the respondents that continuance of the petitioner by virtue of the interim orders passed in other connected matters cannot be the ground to reject the case of the petitioner for regularization.
10. Insofar as the reliance of the respondents on the Circular dated 13.11.2006, it must be noted that the said Circular cannot be brushed aside in light of the law laid down in Nagamani's case as the precise question has been addressed in the order dated 04.03.2008. Further it must be noted that even in para 3 of the Circular, it is specifically stated that if interim order in other connected matters dated 11.04.1990 and 23.04.1993 are taken note of, then, 9 most of the daily wage workers' case would require to be rejected.
11. Accordingly, the Circular of 13.11.2006 does not come to the aid of the respondents. Even otherwise, the observations in the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP makes it clear that case of the individual workman will have to be considered. In light of such observation, it is not open for the respondents to contend that the daily wage workers who have worked under the protection of the interim orders passed in some other matters as regards class of daily wage workers are disentitled to claim the relief of regularization. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be allowed. The endorsement at Annexure-J and also the endorsement at Annexure- P is liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Matter is remitted to the respondents to pass orders in light of the discussions made above while making it clear that recommendation at Annexure-N needs to be kept in mind as also quashing of Annexure-J. Respondents are to proceed to 10 pass order without reopening the matter concluded by raising any fresh ground in light of the detailed discussions made with reference to Annexure- N. Orders to be passed not later than three months from the date of release of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN