Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri Kubera S/O Ghaleppa on 25 June, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25 TH
DAY OF JUNE, 2024
R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No.200147 OF 2022 (S-REG)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL No.200006 OF 2019 (S-REG)
WRIT APPEAL No.200072 OF 2022 (S-REG)
WRIT APPEAL No.200074 OF 2022 (S-REG)
WRIT APPEAL No.200090 OF 2022 (S-REG)
WRIT APPEAL No.200091 OF 2022 (S-REG)
WRIT APPEAL No.200112 OF 2022 (S-REG)
WRIT APPEAL No.200144 OF 2022 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL No.200156 OF 2022 (S-REG)
WRIT APPEAL No.200160 OF 2022 (S-REG)
WRIT APPEAL No.200179 OF 2022 (S-REG)
IN W.A.No.200147 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED, KAVERI BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
-2-
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI ANDANSWAMY,
S/O SIDDALINGAYYA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL,
(EX. LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
CHANNABASAYYA SWAMY,
NGO COLONY, GULBARGA ROAD,
LINGASUGUR - 584 122.
DISTRICT RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 27.06.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.No.200099/2018 (S-REG) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-3-
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
IN W.A.No.200006 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O PRANESHCHAR,
AGED 43 YEARS,
OCC: METER READING WORK,
AT SUB-DIVN, SINDHANOOR,
RAICHUR DIVISION,
R/O C/O S.K.SOUDHI,
K.H.B. COLONY, HUTTI ROAD,
SINDHANOOR - 584 128,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. JADEPPA,
S/O BASAVANTAPPA,
AGED 46 YEARS,
OCC: METER READING WORK
AT DEODURGA SUB DIVN.,
RAICHUR DIVISION,
R/O GEJJEBHAVI POST MASTER,
TQ: DEVADURGA,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. IMANUAL,
S/O PAUL,
AGE 44 YEARS,
METER READING WORK AT
DEODURGA SUB DIVN.,
RAICHUR DIVISION,
R/O MATHAMARI
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. E.SHESHU,
S/O E.ERANNA,
AGE 42 YEARS,
METER READING WORK AT
HOSPET DIVISION, HOSPET,
R/O NISHANI CAMP,
T.B.DAM, HOSPET,
DIST. BELLARY, TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
-4-
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
5. ABDUL SAB
S/O RAJA SAB
AGE 39 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK
AT HOSPETH SUB DIVN., HOSPET
R/O 24TH WARD, SIRISINA COLONY
BELLARY ROAD, HOSPET - 583 201.
6. TIMMANGOUDA,
S/O YENKANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: EX. METER READING WORK
AT YELBURGA SUB-DIVN.,
KOPPAL DIVISION
R/O DOTIHAL, TQ: KUSTAGI
DIST: KOPPAL - 583 231.
7. HANMANTH
S/O MARIYAPPA INDI
AGE 49 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
HANAMASAGAR SECTION IN
KUSTAGI SUB-DIVISION
R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR
KUSTAGI, TQ: KUSTAGI
DIST: KOPPAL - 583 231.
8. MOHD. ISMAIL
S/O ABDUL ROUF
AGE 37 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
KALABURAGI DIVISION
R/O H.No.7-871/A
NAYA MOHALLA
BEHIND TAJ ICE FACTORY
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
9. SHIVARAJ
S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA
AGE 43 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
KALABURAGI DIVISION,
R/O DANDAGUND, TQ: CHITTAPUR
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 101.
-5-
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
10. SHIVAJI PAWAR
S/O MOHAN SINGH
AGE 43 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
BIDAR DIVISION
R/O H.No.9-12-286
VIDHYA NAGAR COLONY,
NEAR BABALESHWAR CHOWK,
BIDAR - 585 401.
11. SANGRAM
S/O GANAPATI
AGE 46 YEARS
OCC: EX. METER READING WORK AT
GESCOM BIDAR DIVISION
R/O PARATAPUR,
TQ: BASAVA KALYAN
DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P.VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY,
K.P.T.C.L KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 09.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 09.
3. KALABURAGI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
-6-
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE,
DATED 13.03.2018 PASSED IN W.P.No.200763/2016 & 200848-
857/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE
No.GU.VI.KA./PRA.VYA/LE.A./ SA.LE.A/HI.SA-1/2015-16/CYS-153
DATED 04.07.2015 TO THE APPELLANTS AND THE SAME IS
ANNEXED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE
SERVICES OF ALL THE APPELLANTS WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE DATE
OF THEIR ORIGINAL APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE RESPONDENTS
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN W.A.No.200072 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
SARIGE SADAN,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
-7-
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY ,
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI KUBERA,
S/O GHALEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCC: NOW NIL (EX.HELPER),
R/O C/O AMBOJI RAO SURYAVANSHI ,
DHANAGAR GALLI, BRAHMAPUR,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.No.200642/2018 (S-REG) AND CONNECTED CASES AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN W.A.No.200074 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
-8-
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI NIRMAL KUMAR,
S/O GNANAMITRA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT AT
SHORAPUR SUB DIVISION, YADGIR,
R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
No.13TH CROSS, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.No.203631/2018 (S-REG) AND CONNECTED CASED AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
-9-
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
IN W.A.No.200090 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PRABHAKAR,
S/O HAJAPPA MALAGE,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ,
LEDGER MAINTENANCE SUB DIVISION,
No.2, GESCOM, KALABURAGI
R/O H.No.1-1236,
- 10 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. SRI BABURAO,
S/O BASANNA HANGARGI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
LEDGER MAINTENANCE SUB DIVISION,
No.2, GESCOM, KALABURAGI,
R/O H.No.1-1236,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. SRI SHIVARAYA,
S/O SHRIMANTH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE,
RURAL SUB DIVISION,
MANNA EKKAHALLI DISTRICT, BIDAR,
R/O H.No.208, GANESH NAGAR,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.No.201889/2018 (S-REG) AND CONNECTED CASED AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN W.A.No.200091 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
- 11 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH IS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O SIDRAMAPPA BHALKI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
BHALKI, SUB-DIVISION, BHALKI
R/O LIG-4, K.H.B. COLONY
BHALKI, DIST : BIDAR - 585 328.
2. SRI HANMANTHA
S/O RAMCHANDRA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
KARATAGI SECTION IN GANGAVATI
R/O KUNIKERI TANDA
POST: KUNIKERI
DIST : KOPPAL - 583 227.
- 12 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
3. SRI. RAJESH
S/O M. NARASOJI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
SEDAM SUB-DIVISION
SEDAM - 585 222, TALUK SEDAM
DIST : KALABURAGI.
4. SRI MALLIKARJUN REDDY
S/O TEJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT AT
YADGIR, SUB-DIVISION, YADGIRI
R/O BHILHAR - 585 355
TALUK : SHAHAPUR, DIST : YADGIR.
5. SRI JOSEPH
S/O HASANAPPA
MAJOR,
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
SEDAM, SUB-DIVISION
SEDAM - 585 222
DIST: KALABURAGI.
6. SRI SOMANATH
S/O BABURAO YEWALE
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK
AT CSD-I, UNIT No.10
SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI
R/O JAGANNATH DHAMMUR
REVANSIDDESHWAR COLONY
BEHIND TV STATION
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
7. SRI PRAKASH
S/O GURUNATHAPPA CHANNAMALLE
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK
AT SUB-DIVISION OFFICE
BASAVAKALYAN
R/O MAHADEVI COLONY
SHIVAPUR ROAD,
TRIPURANATH - 585 327
BASAVAKALYAN, DIST : BIDAR.
- 13 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
8. SRI DATTATREYA
S/O BHASKAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE WORK
AT SUB-DIVISION OFFICE
CHITAGUPPA TALUK, HUMANABAD
R/O PLOT No.102, KUSNOOR ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 105.
9. SRI MANJAPPA
S/O KOTREPPA A.D.,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT GESCOM
SUB-DIVISION OFFICE,
MANVI, DIST : RAICHUR - 584 123
R/O POST: CHANNAGIRI
DIST : DAWANAGERA.
10. SRI HALESH K.H.,
S/O HONNAPPA A.D.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
GESCOM, SUB-DIVISION OFFICE
YALABURAG, DIST : KOPPAL
R/O MALE KOMBALURU
TALUK : HONNALLI
DIST : DAWANAGERE - 583 236.
11. SRI HANMANTHAPPA G.B.
S/O BASETAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
GESCOM SUB-DIVISION
MANVI, DIST : RAICHUR
R/O MALE KOMBALURU
TALUK HONNALLI
DIST : DAWANAGERE - 584 123.
12. SRI RADHA SREEDHAR
D/O Y.K. SURESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT GESCOM
HOSPETH, SUB DIVISION
R/O C/O GURURAJRAO BSNL (RETD)
PANCHAMUKHI COLONY
- 14 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
NEAR PANCHAMUKHI
HANUMAN TEMPLE, RAICHUR - 584 101.
13. SRI I THIPPAIAH
S/O I.CHINNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT GESCOM
SUB-DIVISION KURUGODU RURAL
SUB-DIVISION BELLARY
R/O 78/27, KADAPA STREET
C.B. COLONY, BELLARY - 583 101.
14. SRI MOHD. RAFIQ
S/O T. ABDUL GAFAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT GESCOM
TEKKALAKOTE SECTION
SUB-DIVISION, SIRAGUPPA
DIST : BELLARY
R/O 1ST WARD, MADINA NAGAR
SIRAGUPPA - 583 121.
15. SRI BASAPPA
S/O SANGAPPA MORKI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM, KOPPAL - 583 231
R/O POST HADALGERI TALUK
MUDDEBHIHAL DIST : VIJAYAPURA.
16. SRI ABDUL RAUF
S/O KHATAL AHMED
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE
DIST : KALABURAGI
R/O MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA
K.E.B., COLONY, SEDAM
DIST : KALABURAGI - 585 222.
17. SRI BASALINGAPPA K.H.,
S/O HONNAPPA H.,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
AT YELGURAPPA SUB-DIVISION
- 15 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
DISTRICT KOPPAL
R/O HOLE KAMBALURU POST
TALUK HONNALLI
DIST : DAWANAGERE.
18. SRI K. RAVIKANTH
S/O K. NAGARAJ CHARYA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: LEDGER ASSISTANT IN
SUB-DIVISION OFFICE
GANGAVATHI DISTRICT
KOPPAL - 583 227.
19. SRI BHIMANAIK
S/O PUTTA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT AND
LEDGER MAINTENANCE
SUB DIVISION OFFICE
GANGAVATHI
DIST : KOPPAL - 583 227.
20. SRI NIJALINGAPPA D.,
S/O DEVINDRAPPA A.D.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN
CSD-II, UNIT No.4, GESCOM,
KALABURAGI,
R/O KATTALGERA TALUK - 577 213.
CHENNAGIRI DIST : DAWANAGERA.
21. SRI M.S. CHANDRAMOHAN,
S/O SEETARAM,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT, RAICHUR
SUB-DIVISION, GESCOM, RAICHUR
R/O WARD No.34, POST ASKIHAL
TALUK AND DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
22. SRI SHANMUKAPPA,
S/O GUNDAPPA ARAKERI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN
KOPPAL, SUB DIVISION, GESCOM
KOPPAL
- 16 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
R/O TUMMANKATTI POST,
CHOWDESHWAR
DISTRICT HAVERI - 581 119.
23. SRI RAMESH,
S/O SHIVAPPA EANAHALLI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN
DIVISION OFFICE,
GESCOM, KOPPAL
R/O NEAR HINDI B.ED COLLEGE
GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL - 583 231.
24. SRI R. SUDHAKAR,
S/O R. SHANKAR SHASTRI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
MUNEERABAD SUB-DIVISION ,
OFFICE, GESCOM, KOPPAL
R/O M.J.NAGAR, 3RD CROSS
HOSPETH - 583 201.
25. SRI MARUTI N.,
S/O LATE M.K.NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT GESCOM
SUB-DIVISION, RAICHUR
R/O N.M.C. 1ST CROSS, LEFT SIDE
HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
LEFT SIDE HOSAMANE
BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DIST - 577 245.
26. SRI SHIVAKERI SIDDAPPA S.D.,
S/O HONNAPPA A.D.,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
HARAPANALLI SUB-DIVISION
HARAPANALLI - 583 131.
27. SMT. NETRAVATI
D/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
- 17 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
SUB-DIVISION
HARAPANALLI - 583 131.
28. SRI CHOWADAPPA,
S/O CHALUVADINAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
SUB-DIVISION, SINDHANOOR
SIDHANOOR, DIST : RAICHUR
R/O SRI SAINATH FILLING STATION,
GANGAVATHI ROAD,
SINDHANOOR - 584 128.
29. SRIDEVI
D/O HANMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN CSD-II
UNIT No.9, GESCOM, KALABURAGI
R/O H.No.11-885/1
M.S.K., MILL ROAD,
BASAVA NAGAR
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
30. MS. NAGARATNA
D/O LATE BADEPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
MANVI SUB DIVISION RAICHUR
R/O DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MARAGAMMA TEMPLE
RAICHUR - 584 101.
31. SRI SANTOSH
S/O NARAYAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
SHAHABAD SUB-DIVISION
SHAHABAD,
R/O NEAR SAI MANDI,
JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 103.
32. SRI DIGAMBAR,
S/O VEDAPRAKASHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
- 18 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
SHAHBAD SUB DIVISION, SHAHABAD,
R/O C/O NAGARAJ NEELAYYA
GUBBI COLONY,
SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.No.207310/2017 (S-REG) AND CONNECTED CASES AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN W.A.No.200112 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KAVERI BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
BENGALURU - 560 009,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
- 19 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SHREEDHAR U.,
S/O U.FAKEERAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT AT
KUDALAGI SUB DIVISION, KUDALAGI
R/O WARD No.12,
HOSPET ROAD, KUDALAGI,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 135.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.NO.201565/2018 (S-REG) AND CONNECTED CASED AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN W.A.No.200144 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
- 20 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI MARUTHI
S/O HANMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL
(EX. LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
R/O C/O GURURAJRAO BSNL (RETD)
PANCHAMUKHI COLONY
NEAR PANCHAMUKHI
HANUMAN TEMPLE
RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.No.208470/2017 (S-REG) AND CONNECTED CASES AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
- 21 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
IN W.A.No.200156 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RAMCHANDRA
S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
AT SHORAPUR, SUB-DIVISION,
DISTRICT YADGIR,
- 22 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
R/O H.No.11-1880/3C
NEAR S.B. COLLEGE
RAM NAGAR, KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21.06.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.No.202822/2019 (S-REG) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN W.A.No.200160 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE
KAVERI BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
KAVERI BHAVAN
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
SARIGE SADAN,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
- 23 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
BIDAR - 585 401.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PRAHLAD KULKARNI
S/O DIGAMBAR RAO KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL
(JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM KAMTHANA
TQ: & DIST: BIDAR
R/O H.No.9-5-689/1
PLOT No.90, OLD
ADARSH COLONY BIDAR.
2. SRI MOHAMMED SHAUKAT
S/O MD. JEELANI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL
(JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION GESCOM, BIDAR
R/O SATHOLI POST YAKATPUR
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR.
3. SRI SRIKANTH
S/O HANMANTHA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL (JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER
MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION, GESCOM
AURAD DISTRICT, BIDAR
R/O POST JOJANA
TQ; AURAD, DISTRICT : BIDAR.
- 24 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
4. SRI RAJKUMAR
S/O AMRUTHRAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL
(JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION GESCOM, BIDAR
R/O POST KOUTHANA
TQ: AND DIST : BIDAR.
5. SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O SIDRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL
(JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM, BHALKI
R/O GANDHI CHOWK
BHALKI, DIST : BIDAR.
6. SRI GIRISH
S/O KAMALAKAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL
(JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM, HUMANABAD
R/O KHADAK CHINCHOLI
TQ: BHALKI, DIST : BIDAR.
7. SRI SANTOSHKUMAR
S/O GURUPADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL
(JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM, KAMTHANA
TQ: & DIST: BIDAR
R/O NEAR BALAJI TEMPLE, HUMNABAD
DISTRICT : BIDAR.
8. SRI AARJUN
S/O BHIMU CHAVAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL
- 25 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
(JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM, HUMNABAD
R/O KHADAK CHINCHOLI
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR.
9. MRS. AMBUJA
D/O DATTATREYA RAO
W/O RAJKUMAR PATIL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
(JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM, BIDAR.
10. SRI RAVINDRANATH
S/O SIDRAM
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC: NOW NIL
(JR. ASSISTANT / LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
O & M SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM, BASAVA KALYAN
R/O No.9-8-119
BASAVA NAGAR BIDAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 27.06.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.No.205105/2018 (S-REG) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN W.A.No.200179 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
KAVERI BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 009.
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
- 26 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
KAVERI BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 009
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SANJAY KUMAR
S/O RAMCHANDRAPPA KORE
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE /
JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SUB-DIVISION
OFFICE GESCOM ALAND
DISTRICT KALABURAGI
R/O BILAGUNDA, TALUK AND
DISTRICT KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. SRI MALLIKARJUN
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE /
JUNIOR ASSISTANT
- 27 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
RURAL SUB-DIVISION
OFFICE GESCOM,
KALABURAGI
R/O PLOT No.179, UDANOOR ROAD
VEERABHADRSHWAR COLONY
NEAR RING ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. SRI SURYAKANTH
S/O LINGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE /
JUNIOR ASSISTANT
CITY SUB-DIVISION
GESCOM, KALABURAGI
R/O NEAR RAM MANDIR BRAHMAPUR
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
4. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O VEERANNA ANNIGRI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE /
JUNIOR ASSISTANT
CITY SUB-DIVISION,
GESCOM, KALABURAGI - 585 102
R/O C/O MALLIKARJUN CLOTH STORES
BRAHAMAPUR,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 06.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.No.204622/2018 (S-REG) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.03.2024, THIS DAY K.V. ARAVIND J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
- 28 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W
W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022
W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022
W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022
W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022
W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
JUDGMENT
These appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, against the order passed by learned single Judge in the respective writ petitions.
2. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and other Electricity Supply Companies have preferred Writ Appeal Nos.200072/2022, 200074/2022, 200090/2022, 200091/2022, 200112/2022, 2000144/2022 against the order in W.P.No.201565/2018 and connected matters, dated 30.11.2021; Writ Appeal Nos.200147/2022, 200160/2022 against the order in W.P.No.200099/2018 c/w 205105/2018, dated 27.06.2022; Writ Appeal No.200156/2022 against the order in W.P.No.202822/2019, dated 21.06.2022; and Writ Appeal No.200179/2022 against the order in W.P.No.204622/2018, dated 06.12.2021.
The employees have preferred Writ Appeal No.200006/2019 against the order in W.P.Nos.200763/2016 and 200848-857/2016, dated 13.03.2018.
- 29 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
3. The parties are referred as per their ranks in their respective writ petitions for convenience.
4. The issues involved in all the appeals are similar and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
Brief facts:
5. The petitioners claim that they were appointed on ad hoc, contract or temporary basis against the permanent vacancies and as per the roster. The petitioners were appointed as Ledger Maintenance / Junior Assistance, Meter reading workers and Helpers from 1998-2000. The petitioners contended that their contract was extended till 2008. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed after an interview and considering the roster, age, marks scored in the qualifying examinations and performance in the interview, the work entrusted to the petitioners was permanent. While the petitioners were in service, respondents were informed that their services would be regularized in due course and placed on par with permanent employees with all applicable benefits. The respondents on selective basis confirmed permanent status
- 30 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 to the other temporary or ad hoc employees. In view of the disparity, petitioners requested the respondents to regularize their services on par with others. Due to inaction of the respondents, few of the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.85580-596/2012 wherein, the respondents were directed to consider the request of the petitioners. The directions in WP.Nos.85580-596/2012 resulted in endorsement dated 04.07.2015 refusing to regularize their services. 5.1 The writ petitions by the petitioners challenging the said endorsement dated 04.07.2015.
5.2 The learned Single Judge by holding that similarly situated employees who were appointed on ad hoc or temporary basis have been regularized, applying the rule of parity, directed the respondents to regularize the petitioners from the date when completed 10 years of service and to provide continuity of service and consequential benefits. However, denied back wages.
5.3 We have heard Sri. S.S. Naganand, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Sudharshan M., learned counsel for
- 31 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 the appellants-Corporation. Sri. P. Vilas Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Nitesh Padiyal, learned counsel representing the respondents-employees.
Submissions of learned Senior counsel for the appellants/corporation:
6. The petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis for a limited period and their services have not been continued after 01.02.2008. As the petitioners were not continued in service, the question of regularization does not arise. The engagement of petitioners was purely ad hoc and temporary. As per the Official Memorandum dated 02.11.1999, the petitioners have no claims / right to continue their service or for permanency or not entitled to any preference. It is further submitted that the petitioners were appointed only for a specific work to assist permanent men in the Division and were not entrusted with any independent work. The service of petitioners was liable for termination even before expiry of the period without any notice.
- 32 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 6.1 Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioners were not selected with due process and not qualified to the post as they were appointed on ad hoc. It is further submitted that the conversion of gangmen as probationary mazdoors was to the different class of appointment which cannot be applied to the petitioners' case. Further submits that in W.P.No.200763/2016, while considering the case of similarly placed persons, this Court has refused to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by relegating the grievance of the employees therein to the forum under The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act'). Similarly, the petitioners' grievance should have been relegated to the labour Court under the I.D. Act by learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge committed an error in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without following the earlier order in W.P.No.200763/2016. Learned Senior counsel further submits that no uniformity in appointment and renewal can be claimed or applied. The appointment and renewal would be based on the requisite qualification and experience to the respective post, no uniform rule can be applied to all class of employments either for appointment or renewal or for
- 33 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 regularization. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the contention of the petitioners that they were working continuously without break of service till 2008, is without any basis. Further submits that order of appointment or extension of their service till 2008 as claimed, is not produced though the respondents/appellants dispute the said contention. 6.2 Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioners have not produced any order of appointment, hence question of regularization would not arise.
6.3 Learned Senior counsel, referring to Section 2(oo), submits that the petitioners were not continued in service after 2008. Retrenchment means termination by the employer of the service of a workman. Hence, the controversy would be deemed to be an industrial dispute and the remedy is before the labour Court under Section 2A of the I.D. Act. 6.4 Learned Senior counsel referring to the order of the labour Court in Reference No.19/2012 dated 21.08.2013, submits that the similarly situated employees have approached the labour Court through a reference by the Government of Karnataka.
- 34 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 The labour Court has adjudicated the dispute directing the respondent - management to reinstate the claimants therein as permanent gangmen. In similar circumstances, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable.
6.5 Learned Senior counsel further submits that, as per the petitioners' case, they have not been continued in service from 2008 onwards. The petitioners approached this Court after an inordinate delay. The writ petition was to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
6.6 Lastly, contends that the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for regularization as they do not possess requisite qualifications, direction of the learned Single Judge to regularize the service of the petitioners is only on sympathy and contrary to the rules.
6.7 Learned Senior counsel for the appellants, relies on the following judgments:
i) Union of India and another vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 397;
- 35 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
ii) State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. A.Singamuthu reported in (2017) 4 SCC 113;
iii) Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1;
iv) University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union and others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 256;
v) Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs. Jagdish reported in (2001) 2 SCC 247;
vi) Union of India and others vs. Vartak Labour Union reported in (2011) 4 SCC 200;
vii) S. Muralidhara and Others vs. State Bank of India and Others in Writ Appeal 4050/2009 & 1476-77/2010 DD: 21/04/2010;
viii) Oshiar Prasad and other vs. Employees in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkand reported in 2015 4 SCC 71;
ix) Union of India and others vs. N. Murugesan and others reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25;
- 36 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
x) P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152; and
xi) Vijay Kumar Kaul and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 610.
6.8 By referring to the above judgments, learned Senior counsel contends that facts of the situation to be examined before applying the judgment. Regularization can be considered only when appointment is against sanctioned strength. Unless the scheme provides for regularization, no direction can be issued by the Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the earlier orders of the Court, directing the similarly aggrieved persons to approach the labour Court under the I.D. Act, by following the judicial discipline, the petitioners should have been relegated before the labour Court to redress their grievance. As the factual aspects are in dispute regarding the appointment and continuation of their service, recording of evidence would be necessary, hence, the labour Court is appropriate forum. Further submits that in the absence of Court recording any finding regarding the petitioners fulfilling
- 37 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 the requisite qualifications to the post, cannot direct regularization of services.
Submissions of learned Senior counsel for respondents/employees:
7. Sri. P. Vilas Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that similarly appointed employees on ad hoc or temporary basis have been regularized. When the similarly situated employees' services were terminated after their continuous service from 1998 to 2008, this Court in WP.Nos.101460-101467/2013 dated 15.12.2015, by reversing the order of the reference Court, set aside the termination, directed reinstatement with continuity of service by denying back wages. The petitioners appointed during the same period are entitled to similar benefits.
7.1 Learned Senior counsel further submits that the respondent has regularized the services of similarly situated employees according to the orders of the Court. The respondent being model employer is expected to regularize the services of all the eligible employees without expecting directions from the Court. Considering the financial conditions and less bargaining capacity of the temporary employees, the
- 38 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 practice of the respondents in regularizing the employees those who have approached the Court is incorrect. 7.2 Learned Senior counsel further submits that the respondents being aggrieved against the order in W.P.No.101460-101467/2013 preferred writ appeal before Division Bench of this Court. In W.A.Nos.200007-10/2016 and 200140-143/2016 disposed of on 13.07.2016, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed. The Division Bench order in W.A.Nos.200007-10/2016 and 200140-143/2016 has been confirmed. The SLP preferred by the respondents has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7.3 Learned Senior counsel would further submit that the petitioners were selected through a process against the permanent vacancies on consideration of roster, age, marks scored in the qualifying examinations and performance in the interview. It is not open to the respondents now to contend that the petitioners do not possess requisite qualifications to the post.
- 39 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 7.4 Learned Senior counsel would further submit that the petitioners are workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
7.5 The dispute of the petitioners would not fall within ambit of the I.D. Act as defined under Section 2(k). The remedy provided under Section 2A of the I.D. Act arises only when the employer discharges, dismiss, retrenches or otherwise terminates the service of the individual workman. In the present case, no discharge order, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination is passed. Therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is the only remedy available to the petitioners to redress their grievances. 7.6 Learned Senior counsel further submits that as per V Schedule, Clause 10, continuing any workman on temporary basis is unfair labour practice with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workman. Learned Senior counsel further submits that as per Section 25T of the I.D. Act, unfair labour practice is not permissible and punishable under Section 25U of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioners being employed on temporary basis having
- 40 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 less bargaining capacity have been abused by the respondents in denying regularization of service. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioners have approached the respondents immediately seeking regularization of their services. Few of the petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court seeking directions. Given the respondents' assurance to consider the petitioners' case for regularization in a phased manner, considering the convincible reply by the respondents, the petitioners have waited for regularization of their services. The respondents having persuaded the petitioners to wait till their services to regularize in a phased manner, it is not open to the respondents to turn around and raise a plea of delay and laches. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the respondents being model employer is unreasonable to expect that all the employees / workman have to approach the Court and seek directions for regularization of their services. 7.7 Learned Senior counsel submits that after the confirmation of the direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to regularize the employees in Jagtar Singh alias Jagdev Singh vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2018)15 SCC 189, the
- 41 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 respondent, instrumentality of the State is expected to regularize all employees without any discrimination and bias. It is further submitted that few employees have been regularized as per the whims and fancies.
7.8 Learned Senior counsel for the respondents has relied on the following judgments:
i) Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 1978 SC 597;
ii) Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806;
iii) Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in Civil Appeal No.1059/2005;
iv) U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 6904;
v) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd.
and another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571;
- 42 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
vi) Sheo Narian Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in AIR 2018 SC
233.
vii) Sri. Gururaj R and others vs. The Union of India and others reported in WP.No.50039/2015, DD 07.10.2020;
viii) Management of State Bank of India vs. V.M. Mahapurush reported in ILR 1994 Kar. 2728;
ix) The Joint Director of Agriculture and others vs. Smt. Shankremma and others in Writ Appeal No.200005/2021;
x) Nagappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1986 Kar. 3093; and
xi) Union of India and others vs. N. Murugesan and others reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25.
8. In W.A.No.200006/2019, Sri P Vilas Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, reiterating the submissions, contends that learned Single Judge without specifying the applicable provisions of Labour law held that remedy is available under the I.D. Act.
- 43 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
9. Sri S S Naganand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Corporation reiterating the submissions, contends that learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the petitioners before the labour Court under the I.D. Act.
10. Both the counsels have addressed common arguments in all the appeals under consideration.
11. The petitioners/employees contend that though they were appointed on temporary or ad hoc, selection was made through interview taking into consideration the roster, age, marks scored in the qualifying examination and performance in the interview. It is contended that more than 1400 employees were appointed during 1998 and termination was during 2008. It is contended that though appointment was stated to be for a limited period on monthly remuneration during 1998-1999, the petitioners were permitted to continue to work till 2008. In view of such continuation, appointment of the petitioners was not for limited tenure.
12. Though learned Senior counsel for the respondents/Corporation contends that the petitioners were
- 44 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 appointed only for a limited tenure and the right to seek regularization would not arise, no material is placed on record to support such contention. The respondents utilizing the petitioners' services from 1998-1999 till 2008 is not disputed. The respondents' contention that the appointment of petitioners was tenure-based is unacceptable and is rejected.
13. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents/Corporation submits that the service of the petitioners were terminated with effect from 2008, the remedy to redress their grievance is before the labour Court in terms of Section 2(k) or 2(A) of the I.D. Act. Though the petitioners have specifically contended that no order of termination is issued, the respondents have not placed any orders terminating the petitioners' services. Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act is not available for redressal of the grievance of the individual workman. The remedy under Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act available to a workman is only when discharged, dismissed, retrenched, or terminated. The respondents/Corporation have not placed any order of discharge, dismissal or retrenching or terminating the services of the petitioners to avail the remedy provided under Section
- 45 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 2(A) of the I.D. Act. In the absence of any remedy provided under the statute, it is open for the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge has rightly entertained the writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The respondents/Corporation have contended that the petitioners were terminated in the year 2008 and writ petitions have been preferred after a lapse of nine years, the petitions are to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that when the respondents/Corporation were approached seeking regularization of their services, it was informed that the regularization will take place in phased manner. The petitioners with a bona fide impression that their services would be regularized in a phased manner waited for the decision of the respondents. The petitioners were compelled to approach the Court only when the other workmen approached this Court and the regularization was made to those workmen as per the directions of this Court. The specific contention of the petitioners that they approached the respondents for
- 46 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 regularization and they were informed that the regularization would be made in a phased manner is not disputed. As per the orders placed before this Court, similarly situated workmen/ employees as and when approached this Court, directions were issued, those employees have been regularized between 2012 to 2016. The petitioners filed writ petitions in the year 2017- 2018 when an endorsement was issued. It is only when endorsements were issued refusing to regularize the services of the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court.
15. As per the order produced in the writ petition passed in W.P.Nos.85580-596/2012, this Court issued direction for regularization when similarly situated persons were regularized. Discrimination on regularization among similarly situated persons was held to be ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. In W.P.No.7425/2007 and W.P.No.5975- 6012/2012, the respondents were directed to consider the regularization of the similarly situated persons.
16. In W.P.Nos.101460-467/2013, the petitioners therein were terminated from service during the year 2008. The petitioners therein were among 1400 contract workers
- 47 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 appointed in 1998 and terminated in 2008. In view of the order of termination, the petitioners therein availed the remedy before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal denied the relief of regularization. This Court considering that the petitioners therein were appointed in the year 1998 and terminated in the year 2008 held that though appointment was for few months as per the agreement, however tenure of the workman was continued from time to time with artificial break and held that such termination is unfair labour practice.
17. The petitioners in these petitions were appointed for a limited period in the year 1998 and not continued after 2008 without any order of termination. The petitioners are similarly situated and are entitled for the relief extended by this Court in W.P.No.101460/2013. The Corporation preferred writ appeal against the judgment in W.P.No.101460/2013 in W.A.No.200007/2016. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 13.07.2016 upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge and held that the discontinuation of the service of the petitioners does not amount to retrenchment to attract Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act. The Division Bench
- 48 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 confirmed the direction of the learned Single Judge to reinstate the petitioners into service as regular workmen of the respondent-Corporation therein. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the Corporation against the judgment in writ appeal in the case of Sanjeev Kumar in W.A.No.200007/2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
18. The contention of learned Senior counsel for the Corporation that the relief granted by the High Court has been confined to the respondents-employees in those petitions. Hence, the relief granted by this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar and others cannot be extended to the other employees. The said contention is not acceptable. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that impugned orders i.e. orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench would be confined to the respondents/workmen therein. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be read as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation to hold that the employee/workman similarly situated as in the case of
- 49 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 Sanjeev Kumar cannot be given the similar benefit. On examination of the facts in the case of Sanjeev Kumar and in the present writ appeals, we are of the view that the employees in both cases were appointed to different posts in the year 1998 and not continued after 2008. However, we see no reason to deny regularization of the employees in these appeals when the regularization has been extended to the similarly situated persons by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar's case.
19. This Court in W.P.No.85580/2012 has recorded that as the workmen were under the impression that they would be regularized as per their turn, as a consequence there was delay in approaching the Court. In the present case also, the contention of the petitioners that when the respondent- Corporation was approached for regularization, the petitioners were given the impression that regularization would be made in phased manner as per their turns cannot be doubted. The respondent/Corporation after giving an impression to the petitioners/workmen that they will be considered for regularization as per their turns in a phased manner, it is not open to the respondent-Corporation to contend that there is a
- 50 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 delay on the part of the petitioners-workmen in approaching the Court.
20. In a dispute regarding regularization of Gang-man appointed on contract basis, the labour Court in a reference directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the workman as permanent Gang-man with consequential reliefs. The order under reference in Ref.No.19/2012, dated 21.08.2013 was subject matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.9211/2014. In the said writ petition, memorandum of settlement has been filed accepting the order of the labour Court for reinstatement of the claimants therein as permanent Gang-man subject to modification of backwages. On reference to the various orders passed by the labour Court or by this Court, it is clear that the respondent-Corporation has regularized the services of its workmen/employees, only upon directions by the Courts. When the Corporation has employed nearly 1400 employees on contract basis or daily wage or ad hoc, the expectation of the Corporation to seek direction by every person for their regularization from the Court and raising the plea of delay and laches is unacceptable.
- 51 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
21. It is settled position of law that it is the duty cast upon the Corporation to identify the identically situated persons and extend the benefit to all. Failing to do would amount to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Denying the benefit on the ground that few persons did not approach the Court is not for the respondent-Corporation to contend being a model employer.
22. When the employees/petitioners were appointed for various posts and their services have been utilized from 1998 to 2008 and when a plea of regularization is raised, it is not open to the respondent-Corporation to contend that the petitioners do not posses a requisite qualification especially in the circumstance when their initial appointment was through due process of selection after fulfilling the eligibility criteria.
23. It is settled that while considering the delay and laches, the parties' conduct is to be examined. In the present case, a series of orders have been passed regarding the regularization of employees who are similarly situated that of the petitioners. In the course of orders, this Court has recorded a finding that
- 52 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 the petitioners therein were assured of regularization as per their turns in a phased manner, when not regularized, approached the Court. Subsequent to orders of the Court, their services have been regularized. In such situation, giving an impression to the petitioners that they would be regularized in a phased manner as per their turns and after lapse of time turning around to reject the request of termination and then raise an issue of delay is not acceptable. The delay in not approaching this Court by the petitioners cannot be attributed to them, but it is to the respondent-Corporation.
24. The contention of learned Senior counsel for the Corporation that High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not issue direction for regularization by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) is of little help in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant Rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee.
- 53 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 " 43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of
- 54 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates."
25. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners are not only appointed as
- 55 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 temporary employees and continued for a time beyond the term of the appointment, as the initial appointment was following a due process of selection, the regularization cannot be denied. In view of the petitioners being appointed with due process of interview, roster, consideration of qualifying examination, performance in the interview and against the sanctioned posts as observed by this Court in various writ petitions, the claim of regularization would fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra).
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) has laid down principles concerning regularization of contracts/temporary employment. It is held that contractual appointment ends at the end of the contract. Even though the employment is continued beyond the term of appointment, the employee would not be entitled to seek regularization of service or made permanent merely on the strength of continuance. It is further held that regularization of temporary employment is permissible if the original appointment was made by following due selection process. In the facts, the petitioners were
- 56 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 temporarily appointed by selection through a process against the permanent vacancies on consideration of roaster, age, marks scored in the qualifying examination and performance in the interview.
27. In S.S. Anand and others vs. The Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta (Regd.), Bangalore and another reported in 1998(3) Kar.L.J. 293, the Division Bench of this Court has held that when employees have given the best part of their lives to the Institution through long services rendered by them, it is not open to the employer to dispute the manner of selection regarding requisite qualification. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed on fulfilling the requisite qualification for appointment through selection process. The Corporation has utilized the services of the said employees/petitioners for nearly ten years. Having appointed the petitioners on a temporary basis for a limited period and utilized their services for ten years, it is not open to the respondents to dispute the petitioners' eligibility to regularize their services.
- 57 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 Equality:
28. In Nagappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1986 KAR 3093, Division Bench of this Court held that every person doesn't need to approach Court for a relief similar to the one already granted by the Court. If the Court renders a decision, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases coming before them. It is improper to drive every person to seek relief in the Court. The authorities must extend the benefit of the concluded decision of the Court to all other similar cases.
29. In the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Article 14 of the Constitution of India has held as, Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness to conform with Article 14. It must be "right
- 58 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 and just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.
30. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others in Civil Appeal No.9849/2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"22.1 The normal rule is that when the court gives a particular set of employees relief, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they should not be treated differently.
22.2 However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in
- 59 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3 However, this exception may not be apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [ K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997)6 SCC 721: 1998 SCC (L & S) 226]). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
- 60 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
31. The petitioners in the case of Sanjeev Kumar (supra) and in this case are similarly situated and were appointed through similar process. When the similarly placed employees were regularized, there is no reason to deny the benefit of regularization to the petitioners in the present case. Denial of regularization would amount to discrimination and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have approached the Corporation well in advance and with repeated representations. The Corporation informed the petitioners that the regularization would be made in the phased manner, which persuaded them to wait for their turn. After successfully convincing the petitioners to wait and the petitioners having believed the assurance of the Corporation, on failure to fulfill the assurance, when the petitioners approached this Court, it is not open to the Corporation to plea delay and laches. In view of the continued persuasion of the petitioners to regularize their services, the petitioners cannot be considered as a fence- sittors.
32. Insofar as the contentions of the learned Senior counsel for the Corporation, on observations made by the Hon'ble
- 61 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar (supra) confining the relief granted by this Court to the respondents therein, is of no assistance to the Corporation. The subject matter of this appeal is correctness of the endorsement issued by the Corporation dated 04.07.2015. The petitioners have approached this Court within the reasonable time. The representation was made by the petitioners well in advance and the endorsement issued by the Corporation was much before the order in the case of Sanjeev Kumar. The claim of regularization was not on the basis of the relief granted to the similarly placed employees in the case of Sanjeev Kumar. When the employees in Sanjeev Kumar and that the petitioners are similarly placed, the contention of the Corporation that petitioners approached the Court after lapse of time and not entitled for regularization would lead to arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
33. Learned Senior counsel for the Corporation contends that in view of the judgments in the cases of Vijay Kumar Kaul (supra), P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra), S.S. Balu and
- 62 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 another vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479 and in the case of Union of India and Others vs. N. Murugesan and others (supra), petitioners are not entitled for the relief on the ground of parity due to delay and laches in approaching this Court.
34. The contention is not acceptable and the judgments do not apply to the present case's facts and circumstances. In the case on hand, the petitioners approached the Corporation and were assured that their services would be regularized in a phased manner. The petitioners, considering the respondents' response, waited for regularization till issue of endorsement in the year 2015. Given the petitioners' continuous pursuit of the remedy, it is difficult to hold that the petitions suffer from delay and laches.
35. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent/Corporation relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oshiar Prasad (supra) to contend that as the appointment of the petitioners was for temporary period and not continued after 2008, the contract of employment was not in subsistence to seek regularization. The said contention is not acceptable.
- 63 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 Though the petitioners were initially appointed for a limited period, their services were continued for ten years. No order of termination of employment is placed on record. Hence, the above judgment does not apply to the present case's facts.
36. Learned Senior counsel for the Corporation contends that the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.200763/2016 has relegated the similarly situated petitioners to the labour Court under the I.D. Act. By applying the said judgment, to maintain judicial discipline, learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the petitioners for an appropriate remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act instead of invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue directions to regularize. The said contention is not applicable.
37. Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act, is not applicable for redressal of individual grievance of a workman. To invoke the remedy under Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act, there is no order of discharge, dismissal or retrenchment or termination. In W.P. No.200763/2016, the Court though refused to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by observing that the petitioners therein have remedy under the
- 64 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 I.D. Act, no specific provision under which remedy is available is stated. Whereas, in the impugned order, learned Single Judge on examination of various provisions of the I.D. Act, has held that there is no remedy under the I.D for redressal of the petitioners' grievance. In view of the above, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has rightly entertained the petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
38. The reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vartak Labour Union (supra) to contend that the employee has no right of regularization on the ground of continuation for longer service is of no assistance to the Corporation. In the present case, the initial appointment though temporary, however was in terms of the process envisaged under the Rules.
39. In the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"8. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (Supra) has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how
- 65 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi (Supra) . The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Umadevi (Supra) has been ignored and conveniently overlooked by various State Governments/authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Umadevi (Supra) has not been implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularising the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Articles 14, 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0237 : AIR 1983 SC 130] from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits, etc. There is clear
- 66 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance to really implement the ideology of Umadevi (Supra) . Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Umadevi (3) (Supra) can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Umadevi (Supra) laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/ad hoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in Umadevi (Supra)."
"10. The High Court dismissed the writ application relying on the decision in Umadevi (Supra). But the appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they had rendered service for three years, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it was not the case of back door entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time, when their temporary status was conferred w.e.f. 2-10-2002. The
- 67 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a one-time measure, as laid down in para 53 of Umadevi (Supra). Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect from 2-10-2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be regularised from the said date i.e. 2-10-2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today."
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65, has held as under:
"19. No doubt that the powers under Section 17 are meant for meeting the exigencies contemplated under it, such as, riot or disturbance which are normally expected to be of a short duration. Therefore, the State might not have initially thought of creating either a cadre or permanent posts.
20. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of a large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. The State has to create them by a conscious
- 68 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need.
21. The question is whether this Court can compel the State of Punjab to create posts and absorb the appellants into the services of the State on a permanent basis consistent with the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. To answer this question, the ratio decidendi of Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is required to be examined. In that case, this Court was considering the legality of the action of the State in resorting to irregular appointments without reference to the duty to comply with the proper appointment procedure contemplated by the Constitution: (SCC pp. 17-18, para 4) "4. ... The Union, the States, their departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure through the Public Service Commissions or otherwise as per the rules adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the
- 69 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 post. It has also led to persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, approaching the courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned. The courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases, even directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. A class of employment which can only be called 'litigious employment', has risen like a phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme. Such orders are passed apparently in exercise of the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are intended to be used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public employment as recognised by our Constitution, has to be seriously pondered over."
(emphasis supplied)
- 70 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 It can be seen from the above that the entire issue pivoted around the fact that the State initially made appointments without following any rational procedure envisaged under the scheme of the Constitution in the matters of public appointments. This Court while recognising the authority of the State to make temporary appointments engaging workers on daily wages declared that the regularisation of the employment of such persons which was made without following the procedure conforming to the requirement of the scheme of the Constitution in the matter of public appointments cannot become an alternate mode of recruitment to public appointment.
22. It was further declared in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] that the jurisdiction of the constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 cannot be exercised to compel the State or to enable the State to perpetuate an illegality. This Court held that compelling the State to absorb persons who were employed by the State as casual workers or daily-wage workers for a long period on the ground that such a practice would be an arbitrary practice and violative of Article 14 and would itself offend another aspect of Article 14 i.e. the State chose initially to appoint such persons without any rational procedure recognised by law thereby depriving vast number of other eligible candidates who were similarly situated to compete for such employment.
- 71 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
23. Even going by the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , we are of the opinion that the State of Punjab cannot be heard to say that the appellants are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as their appointments were purely temporary and not against any sanctioned posts created by the State.
24. In our opinion, the initial appointment of the appellants can never be categorised as an irregular appointment. The initial appointment of the appellants is made in accordance with the statutory procedure contemplated under the Act. The decision to resort to such a procedure was taken at the highest level of the State by conscious choice as already noticed by us."
41. The facts and circumstances involved in the above judgment and the case on hand are identical. The initial appointment of the petitioners was following due process and merit.
42. The finding of learned Single Judge that the petitioners were all overaged and cannot aspire to get into any service after working with respondent-Corporation beyond the period of contract by exploiting the bargaining powers of the employer needs no interference. Though the petitioners were appointed
- 72 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 only for the limited period in the year 1998 and allowing them to continue to work till 2008 would create a legitimate expectation in the minds of the workmen/employees/ petitioners on regularization of their service. The conduct of the respondent-Corporation in regularising the similarly situated persons would enhance the legitimate expectation and the regularization cannot be deprived to the petitioners by taking advantage of less bargaining powers by the respondent- Corporation.
43. In the absence of specific material on record concerning the petitioners regarding the educational qualification, requisite eligibility and other aspects as on the date of appointment in 1998, the specific direction by learned Single Judge to regularize the services is incorrect. To that extent, we deem it appropriate to modify the order of learned Single Judge by permitting the petitioners to file a representation with the respondent-Corporation seeking regularization of their services, the Corporation shall consider the same considering the eligibility criteria as on the date of initial appointment in the year 1998 and to regularize the services of the petitioners
- 73 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 within three months. The direction of learned Single Judge on other aspects regarding counting of past service, fixation of pay and pension, back wages needs no interference and justified.
44. Insofar as W.A.No.200006/2019, the appeal is by the employees wherein learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to invoke remedy under the I.D. Act. Similar argument was raised by the Corporation in the batch of appeals preferred by the Corporation. The said argument has been negatived in the preceding paragraphs by holding that the employees have no remedy under the I.D. Act. It is held that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. The order of learned single Judge is to be interfered.
45. In the circumstances, the following;
Order
i) The appeals of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and other Electricity Supply Companies in Writ Appeal Nos.200072/2022,
- 74 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022 200074/2022, 200090/2022, 200091/2022, 200112/2022, 2000144/2022, 200147/2022, 200156/2022, 200160/2022 and 200179/2022 are allowed in-part.
ii) The order of learned Single Judge is modified to the extent directing to regularize the petitioners.
iii) The appellants/Corporations are directed to re-
consider the request of the petitioners for regularization from the date when they complete 10 years of service with continuity of service and consequential benefits keeping in view the observations made in the body of the order.
iv) The appeal by the employees in Writ Appeal No.200006/2019 is hereby allowed.
v) The order in W.P.Nos.200763/2016 & 200848- 857/2016 dated 13.03.2018 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed in-part subject to direction at (iii) above.
- 75 -
W.A. No.200147 OF 2022 C/W W.A. No.200006 OF 2019, W.A. No.200072 OF 2022 W.A. No.200074 OF 2022, W.A. No.200090 OF 2022 W.A. No.200091 OF 2022, W.A. No.200112 OF 2022 W.A. No.200144 OF 2022, W.A. No.200156 OF 2022 W.A. No.200160 OF 2022, W.A. No.200179 OF 2022
vi) The exercise of regularization as directed above shall be completed within three months from the date of furnishing of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DDU/ VBS/ MV