Karnataka High Court
Srinivasa vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2023
-1-
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.3672 OF 2021 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS. 3468 OF 2021, 9537 OF 2021
17599 OF 2021, 18087 OF 2021 AND 21650 OF 2021
IN WP NO.3672 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRINIVASA
S/O HULIGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.74, 6TH CROSS,
ARAVINDA NAGAR,
JT EXTENSION,
MYSURU -570 023.
WORKING AS GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEE,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSURU - 570 024.
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA
Location: High Court
2. P. MAHADEVU
of Karnataka S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.1-C, KAMADHENU ROAD,
KYATHAMARANAHALLI ,
UDAYAGIRI,
MYSURU - 570 019.
WORKING AS GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEE,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSURU - 570 024.
3. CHELUVARAJU R.
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
-2-
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.367/1, 1ST CROSS,
NAZARBAD, JETTY STREET,
MYSURU - 570 010.
WORKING AS GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEE,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSURU - 570 024.
4. SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY H.
S/O HULIGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.815, 21st MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
J.P. NAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 024.
WORKING AS GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEE,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSURU - 570 024.
5. MAHADEVU
S/O MANTHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.473, GIRIDARSHINI BADAVANE,
ALANAHALLI,
MYSURU - 570 028.
WORKING AS GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEE,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSURU - 570 024.
6. THIMMAIAH V.
S/O LATE KULLA VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.84, SARAKERI UTTANAHALLI,
ADAJANA POST,
MYSURU - 570 007.
WORKING AS GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEE,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSURU - 570 024.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
-3-
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DR. B.R AMBEDKAR ROAD,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION,
NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 024.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU,
KRISHNARAJA BOULVARD ROAD,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5:
SMT. M.P.GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.5, WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS'
-4-
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
REQUEST FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE IS REJECTED
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO.3468 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MADAIAH
S/O LATE JOGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.144, GAYATHRIPURAM,
VISHWAKARMA COLONY,
MYSURU - 570 019.
WORKED AS GROUP 'C' EMPLOYEE,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSURU - 570 024.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-5-
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
4. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 024.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU,
KRISHNARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5:
SMT. M.P.GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE
CASE OF THE PETITIONER AS 'DEEMED REGULARIZED' FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DISBURSING RETIREMENT AND OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS INCLUSIVE OF
PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND ETC.
IN WP NO.9537 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAYAMMA
W/O LATE DODDASIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.E14, 1ST STAGE,
RAJENDRANAGARA, KESERE,
MYSURU - 570 007.
WORKED AS GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEE,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
-6-
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESHWRAIAH TOWER,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSURU - 570024.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU,
KRISHNARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M S NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5:
SMT. M.P.GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES FOR QUASHING THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.5, WHEREIN THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST
-7-
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE IS REJECTED VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP 17599 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. S. RAM KUMAR
S/O LATE K.S. SHESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.70/2B, 11TH CROSS,
RAJENDRANAGARA,
MYSURU,
KARNATAKA - 570 007.
2. RAMAKKA
W/O MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.43, 1ST MAIN,
1ST CROSS, GUNDURAO NAGAR,
OTTIY ROAD,
MYSURU,
KARNATAKA - 570 008.
BOTH PETITIONERS WORKED AS
GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEES,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
-8-
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 024.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU,
KRISHNARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5:
SMT. M.P. GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES FOR QUASHING THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.5, WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS REQUEST
FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE IS REJECTED VIDE
ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.
IN WP NO.18087 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MANCHAIAH
S/O LATE HONNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.1606,
III CROSS, K.N. PURA,
KALYANAGIRI,
-9-
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
MUSURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 019.
2. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.133,
KASABA HOBLI,
UDAYAGIRI POST,
VTC: RAMMANAHALLI,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 570 019.
3. RAJU
S/O LATE MANCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.18, BAVI KATTE BEEDI,
1ST BLOCK, KASABA HOBLI,
RAMMANAHALLI,
MYSURU,
KARNATAKA - 570 019.
4. *NINGANNA
S/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.2572, 4TH CROSS,
K.G. KOPPAL,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU,
KARNATAKA - 570 009.
ALL PETITIONERS ARE WORKED AS
GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEE,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
*Corrected vide Chambers Order dated 28.11.2023.
- 10 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 024.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU,
KRISHNARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA,AGA, FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5:
SMT. M.P. GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.5 WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS REQUEST
FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE IS REJECTED VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
- 11 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
IN WP NO.21650 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
AEJAZ AHMED
S/O LATE M. ABDUL AZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.2387-1A,
KAILASAPURAM,
SULTHAN PARK ROAD,
1,2ND CROSS, SRINIVASA TEMPLE ROAD,
MYSURU - 560 018.
WORKED AS GROUP 'D' EMPLOYEES,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DIRECSTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
BENGALURU - 560 001
- 12 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
4. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 024.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU,
KRISHNARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5:
SMT. M.P.GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES FOR QUASHING THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.5 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST
FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE IS REJECTED VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the Communication dated 27th December, 2017 (Annexure-A) addressed by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.4- Corporation, rejecting the application of petitioners for regularisation. The issue involved in these writ petitions are
- 13 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS one and the same and accordingly, these writ petitions are clubbed and disposed of by this common order.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are working in the respondent No.4-Corporation as daily wage workers since 1986. It is contended in writ petitions that, some of the employees of the respondent No.4-Corporation approached this Court in Writ Petition No.22957-978 of 1989 seeking regularisation, and this Court, by order dated 16th February, 1990, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DHARWAD DISTRICT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT LITERATE DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS decided on 23rd February, 1990. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Corporation approved the time scale to the daily wage employees as per notification dated 24th November, 1995. The State Government has issued Communication dated 09th September, 1999 to the respondent- Corporation stating that the aforementioned time scale of pay could not be extended to those daily wage employees
- 14 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS appointed after 01st January, 1986 and therefore, respondent- Corporation has passed order dated 23rd September, 1999 in respect of daily wage employees, canceling order dated 24th November, 1995. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioners along with others have approached this Court in Writ Petition No.35817-964 of 1999 and connected matter. This court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 14th October, 1999 directed the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation and further, read down the order dated 24th November, 1995 to consider as show-cause notice issued to the petitioners therein and directed the petitioners to file objections/representations to the State Government and to the Corporation. Pursuant to the same, respondent-authorities have rejected the claim made by the petitioners, for regularisation by Official Memorandum dated 24th March, 2000 and 14th August, 2000, and same was challenged before this Court in Writ Petitions No.35055-218 of 2000. This Court, by order dated 18th November, 2002, quashed the order of rejection passed by the respondent- Government and Corporation, and directed them to regularise the service of the petitioners. The said order dated 18th
- 15 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS November, 2002 in Writ Petition No.35055 -218 of 2000 was questioned before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1959-2122 of 2003. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11th July, 2003, disposed of the writ appeals and directed the respondent-Corporation to re-consider the case of the parties in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS reported in (2006)4 SCC 1, considered the issue relating to regularization. Pursuant to the same, the respondent-Corporation addressed letter dated 21st December, 2015 to the respondent No.5 herein, recommending for regularisation of service of 143 daily wagers. It is also to be noted that, some of the Group 'C' employees namely, First Division and Second Division Assistants have approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.35218-35221 of 2011 and this Court, by order dated 28th February, 2012 allowed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-Government has approached this Court in Writ Appeal No.45 of 2013 and connected appeals. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 13th November, 2013, dismissed the appeal. It is also stated in the writ petition
- 16 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS that some of the daily wage workers attained superannuation without regularisation and such employees have approached this Court in Writ Petition No.50876 of 2019 and connected matters and this court, by order dated 21st October, 2020, allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners for deemed regularization.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the petitioners were working with the respondent-Corporation for more than 30 years without the protection of the interim order of any Court and as against the vacant post and as such, approached the respondent-Corporation for appropriate action in the matter. In the meanwhile, petitioners have made representation dated 03rd November, 2020 and requested the respondents to consider the case of petitioners in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.50876 of 2019 and connected matters. Hence, these writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking consideration of their prayer for "Deemed Regularization" for the purpose of disbursing retirement and other consequential service benefits including pensionary benefits.
- 17 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
4. Heard Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-Government and Smt. M.P. Geethadevi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.
5. Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned communication dated 27th December, 2017 issued by the respondent No.5 herein is quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.50876 of 2019 and connected matters and therefore, rejection of the claim made by petitioners who were working more than thirty years have been sent home, unceremoniously is not correct, though the petitioners have been appointed as against the sanctioned post and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. He further contended that the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 13th November, 2013 in Writ Appeal Nos.45 of 2013 and connected appeal has quashed the similar endorsement and despite the same, the respondents are discriminating the employees and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI
- 18 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS (supra) and contended that the petitioners have fulfilled all the conditions enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, sought for setting aside the impugned order. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of MURUGA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.50876 of 2019 decided on 21st October, 2020; in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. MURUGA made in Writ Appeal No.629 of 2021 decided on 13th July, 2021; in the case S. MAHESH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Writ Petition No.12224 of 2020 decided on 25th August, 2021; in the case of G.P. SAROJAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Writ Petition No.80646 of 2011 decided on 08th March, 2021 and in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS VS. TALSIBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 187, and accordingly, sought for allowing the prayers in the writ petitions.
6. Per contra, Smt. Geethadevi M.P., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that the writ petition is barred by acquiescence and laches. She also contended that most of the petitioners are retired from service during year-2020 and never claimed regularisation of service
- 19 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS and have approached the Court to make unjust gain from the respondents. Accordingly, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition. She further contended that, Group 'C' employees of respondent-Corporation have approached this Court in Writ Petition No.22957-78 of 1999 and their case has been considered for regularisation and at that point of time, the petitioners have not approached this Court. Further she contended that the relief sought for in the aforementioned writ petition were confined to the Group 'C' employees and accordingly, sought for dismissal of writ petitions. She also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI. SRINIVASA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF MYSURU made in Writ Petition No.3283 of 2020 disposed of on 24th July, 2020, SRINIVASA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU made in Writ Appeal No.434 of 2020 and contended that, the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of service, that too at belated stage and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government sought to justify the impugned order and submitted that, the claim made
- 20 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS by the petitioners is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra) and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, prayer No.1 sought for by the petitioners, quashing the communication dated 27th December, 2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.5 is quashed by this Court in writ petition No.50876 of 2019 and connected matters by order dated 21st October, 2020 and therefore, no further orders are required to be made. However, insofar as prayer No.2 is concerned, seeking direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners as "Deemed Regularisation" for the purpose of disbursing retirement and consequential benefits as per Annexure-A, the respondent No.5 addressed letter dated 27th December, 2017, whereby the respondent No.5 has stated that the petitioners were not appointed against the sanctioned posts. It is pertinent too mention here that, the respondent-Corporation has granted time scale to the employees working in the respondent- Corporation as per Notification dated 24th November, 1995. This Court, by order dated 14th October, 1999 in Writ Petition
- 21 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS No.35817-964 of 1999 and connected matters has directed the respondent-Corporation to consider the claim of petitioners therein, who are similarly placed like the petitioners in the present case for regularisation within six months and thereafter, this Court had an occasion to issue writ of mandamus to the respondent-Authorities to regularize the service of such employees in Writ Petition No.35055-218 of 2000 decided on 18th November, 2002. The said order of the learned single judge was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1959-2122 of 2003 decided on 11th July, 2003. At paragraph 5 of the order, Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"5. So far as the law on regularization is concerned, it is well settled that an incumbent is entitled for regularization Regularisation depends on the availability of substantive post, terms of the appointment order, continuation of service, seniority and the rules prevailing in the establishment, and each case has to be considered on its own merit, which cannot be gone into by this Court Under the circumstances, the direction to regularize the services of the respondent without appreciating the case of each respondent is not sustainable and the order of the learned single
- 22 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Judge is liable to be set aside. The Corporation has to consider the fact situation of each case, according to law."
9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the respondent-Corporation has regularized the Group 'C' employees and remaining 143 Group-D employees in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra). It is also to be noted that such of the First and Second Division Assistants of Group 'C' employees was also confirmed in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Appeal No.45 of 2013 and connected Appeals decided on 13th November, 2013. The Division Bench at paragraph 5 held as under:
5. Even as the direction issued by the order impugned herein is only to reconsider the cases of the employees after quashing the order dated 11.03.2011 of the appellant herein , it was clear from the perusal of the said order that it could not withstand a judicial scrutiny. The grounds for rejecting the claim of regularization in service, as briefly enumerated hereinabove could not be substantiated by learned Government Advocate on the basis of any material on record. Even after the clear directions of this court in WP Nos 32357-
- 23 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 2366/1999, it was too late in the day for the appellant herein to contend that employees concerned has failed to prove that there were no vacant posts at the time when they were initially appointed on temporary basis. It could also not be substantiated from the record that they were surviving in service for 20 years only on account of one or the other order of the High Court or for that matter any Court or Tribunal. The disputable fact that the appellant themselves had issued orders to place the employees at the minimum of the time scale from the year 1995 was step towards regularizing their services rather than terminating their services in accordance with law. Thereafter, even disregarding the whole chequered history of the case, the exceptional provision made in paragraph 53 of the judgment of Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Umadevi (supra) [(2006) 4 SCC 1)] made it incumbent upon the appellant to consider the cases of the employees in light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the year 2006. A bare reading of those observations of the Apex Court would indicate that the Union of India, the State of Karnataka and their instrumentalities were required to take steps to regularize, as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed employees, who had by that time worked for 10 years or more in duly
- 24 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS sanctioned posts, without the cover of orders of any Court or Tribunal. There is a clear direction for this process to be set in motion within six months from 10.02..2006. It is further clarified by the Apex Court that if any regularization were already made and were not subjudice, they need not be reopened, by there should be no by passing of the constitutional requirement. These observations directions would suggest that the appellant herein were, even without the aforesaid directions of this Court, and pursuant to the earlier directions issued by order dated 14.10.1999 in WP Nos 32357- 32366/1999 under a legal obligations to consider the cases of the employees to vent apparent discrimination and injustice in the matter of their own employees consistently working under them, since more than 20 years. It may be pertinent to note here that the best evidence and date about the creation and vacancy of the posts, and the facts about filling up those posts from time to time would be in the knowledge and possession of the appellant and the employees could not be faulted or punished for absence or non-compliance of recruitment rules at the time of their initial entry in service on temporary basis. The appellant haven not appeared to be forthcoming on that aspect. In that view of the matter, it is indeed unfortunate that the appellant, as an institution of local self-
- 25 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS government would have forced its own employees to press their demand in one after the other litigation for the purpose of denying them forever the benefits to which they may be entitled after continuous and admittedly uninterrupted service for more than 25 years by now. The reasons for not considering the cases of the respondent employees for regularizing their services, and grant of full benefits at pas with regular employees of the appellant, within the time limit prescribed in Umadevi (supra) having been found to be baseless and invalid, as discussed in brief herein, it is incumbent upon appellant to consider their cases for regularization of their services in their respective posts or cadre, atleast with effect from 01.08.2006, pursuant to the observations of the Apex Court in Umadevi (supra). Prima facie, the appellant is litigating on the issue, at present in contempt of the impugned order of this Court and the directions of the Apex Court."
10. It is also not in dispute that this court, while quashing the impugned communication dated 27th December, 2017 in Writ Petition No.50876 of 2019 decided on 21st October, 2020, ordered for 'Deemed Regularisation". It is relevant to extract the operative portion of the order:
- 26 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS "1. A writ of mandamus issues to respondent No.5-
Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of their services in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and the Government Order dated 25.05.2006 from the date on which the petitioners completed ten years of service;
2. The impugned communication dated 27.12.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. In case of the petitioners who have attained the age of superannuation subsequent to filing of these writ petitions, their cases also shall be considered for deemed regularization and after the order of deemed regularization is passed with respect to such of the petitioners, all the retrial benefits as is available for a regular employee shall be given.
4. In case of such of the petitioners who continued to work in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court, their salaries shall be paid for the services rendered by them pursuant to the interim orders."
11. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of THE STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS vs. TALSIBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL reported in 2022 LiveLaw (Sc) 187 held as under:
- 27 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS "It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 3o years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years and continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.
In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service."
12. In the light of dictum of this Court referred to above, I have carefully examined the Notifications produced at Annexure-K series in Writ petition No.3672 of 2021, wherein the respondent-Corporation has ordered for retirement of such of the petitioners herein on completion of attaining the superannuation. In all the orders referred to above, the respondent-Corporation has taken decision to regularise the service of petitioners therein from the date of their entry into
- 28 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS service and also implemented the Official Memorandum dated 28th July, 2021. The said aspect has been considered by this Court in writ petition No.12224 of 2020 disposed of on 28th August, 2020. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, as the respondent- Corporation has taken decision to regularise and grant retrial benefits to Group 'C' employees and some of the Group 'D' employees like Loaders, Gardeners and Poura Karmikas and the petitioners herein were also working in the interest of the Mysuru City so also, taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioners between 1982 to till the date of issuance of Annexure-K series i.e., nearly three decades uninterruptedly without any interruption of the judicial orders, I am of the opinion that relieving the services of the petitioners without making any payment on their retirement would not suffice and in compliance of the provision contained under Part
-IV of the Constitution of India. Therefore, though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation raised argument on financial burden on the respondent-Corporation, however, being an instrumentality of the state and model employer, it is the duty of the respondent-Corporation to
- 29 -
WP NO. 3672 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS regularise the service of the petitioners under "Deemed Regularisation" and release the terminal benefits by fixing the pay scale for the period rendered by the petitioner in the respondent-Corporation. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ petitions allowed;
2) Respondent-Authorities are directed to consider the petitioners as 'Deemed Regularised' employees, if petitioners have attained the age of superannuation and release all the retiral benefits in terms of the pay scale of the regular employee and all such benefits as ordered by this Court in Writ Petition No.50876 of 2019 and connected petitions disposed of on 21st October, 2020. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondent-Authorities within four months from the date of receipt of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE ARK