Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh S/O Tippanna vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.81385 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Venkatesh,
S/o Tippanna,
Age 48 Years,
Occu: Junior Engineer,
S.J.S.R.Y. Scheme,
C.M.C.,
RAICHUR. PETITIONER.
(By Sri,Shivakumar Kalloor, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban I)eveloprnen t.
By its Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
BANGALORE.
2. Director of Municipal
Administration,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
BANGALORE.
3. Deputy Commissioner,
Project Director.
RAICHUR,
4. Commissioner.
City Municipal Council,
RAICHUR. .. RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri,M.Kumar,
AGAforR-1 toR-3.
Sri.Chand Abdul Rubb.
Adv. for R-4)
This petition is flied under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation as Junior
Engineer with effect from notification of 2005 dated
28.10.2005 and give all retrospective benefits from the date of
the said notification and direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to
consider the representation Annexure -- L" dated 19.08.2008
and send the proposal to respondent No.2, D.M.A.. for
regularisation.
This petition having been heard and reserved for Orderc
this day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
Petitioner herein is seeking direction to respondent to consider his case for regularisation in terms of notilicatioH dated 28.10.2005, pursuant to Annexure - 'iL' dated 19.08.2008, -3- as under:
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are as Junior Engineer Petitioner herein has been working than ten years. He is with fourth respondent for more seeking regularisation of his appointment under the (Absorption of the employees Karnataka Municipalities arna Jayanthi Shaharl appointed under the scheme of Sw cal Bodies), Rules 2005.
Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) in Urban Lo ts herein regularised the By virtue of this rule, the responden Community Organisers, services of 207 ProJect Officers, 295 erator and 3 Attenders.
64 Junior Engineers. 1 Computer Op names were left
3. However, while doing so some of the d rule another notification out. In that behalf, pursuant to sai 2004 dated 04.08.2009, was issued vide No.UDD 78 EMC wherein several persons working as contractual labourers appointment was not under SJSRY scheme and whose n dated 28.10.2005 were regularised pursuant to notificatio petitioner that his name also regularised. It is the case of the t notification of 2005 or in was not included either in the firs ularisation. In that behalL the second notification of 2009 for reg
-4.
several correspondence took place between him and fourth respondent resting with Annexure -- "L" which is submitted by the petitioner, pursuant to recommendation of Director of Planning, District Development Cell, Office of the I)eputy Commissioner, Raichur. Though the said representation is given on 19.08.2009, till today no steps are taken.
Hence the present writ petition.
4. In this proceeding, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would subm it that in view of the decision rendered by the Divi sion Bench of this Court in the matter of Basheer Ahrned Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.82702/2009 following the decision in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Or. Vs. Uma devi & Ors.
reported in AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1806, the appointment of the petitioner, which is on a contractual basis cannot be regularised and he also relies upon the relevant portion, namely Para 43 of the said judgment.
5. Heard the counsel for petitioner and responden ts. On going through the ground.s urged in this writ petition and also -5- the finding of Apex Court in Umadevi's matter, It Is clearly seen that the prayer of the petitioner to seek regularisatlon of his job Is not pursuant to any executive direction issued by any of the officer of the respondents, it Is pursuant to rules which is framed under the Karnataka Municipalities (Absorption of the employees appointed under the scheme of Swarna Jayanthl Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) in Urban Local Bodies), Rules 2005, which is published In Gazette on 28.10.2005.
6. It Is also seen that the case of the petitioner herein is not regularisation of an isolated employees. It Is under the policy decision taken by the Government. first respondent.
Necessaiy rules are framed under Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, pursuant to which the entire batch of employees appointed on contractual basis against the sanctioned post under SJSRY scheme are regularised in the place where they are presently working at that time.
7. The petitioner being similarly placed. he will have to be reconsidered in similar manner as observed by the Director of 'Ut' -6- Planning, District Development Cell, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, In his letter dated 10.12.2007. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the direction as sought for by the petitioner would not be opposed to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court In Umadevi's case and followed by the Division Bench of this Court In the matter of Basheer Ahnied Vs. State of Karnataka.
8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition Is allowed with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner herein, similar to the case of several persons whose appointment Is regularised under notifications dated 28.10.2005 and 04.08.2009 whIch are respectively Annexures - "C" and "D" to this writ petition.
Sd! JUDGE AGV.