K D Sundar Raj vs The Union Of India on 27 March, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 23]

Karnataka High Court

K D Sundar Raj vs The Union Of India on 27 March, 2008

Bench: B.S.Patil

WP 37785/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED 11-15 THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 

BEFORE
 HC}N""' E '  B 3 "'."i'iL

ammm

K.D.SUNDAR RAJ ,

AGED ABOUT -317 YEARS,

s/0 KDHANPAL NAIDUI' 

H0131/1, gm (moss,  I

CHAMARAJPET, ..  :  --- .  

BAJJGALORE -  018   _  V. A  '    ' EGPETITIQNER

A nun,

1. THE U1'-EI'('Iv%'.vI.f=I'L'_:F-"IﬁDIA,'=. ' I
REI?RESENTEQ~B_Y<I'PEI._ _ ~
MINISTRY OF iNF'ORMA'--!'ION
AND ER05DCAS'TING.'«..\ 
l\_!EW_DELHI..'  '

A 'V  - 2. " v*riIE.D1R=Ec1'oR' GENVERAL,

* --. DOORDAFSHAN EF?C)i\DCAS""iNG

V V' ICOR'P_0RAT_ICiN OF INDIA,

._ "-'.LSOORlf_}ARSVhAN Bi-IAVAN,
I A MANDI HOUSE,
"NEW'DEL'Hl.

 I3. TIIE...bIREcToR,

'T L'-DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,

V' =  MINISTRY op INFORMATION 85

BROADCASTING,

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

JAYACI-IAMARAJENDRA NAGAR,

BANGALORE - 6. ..RESPONDEN'l'S

(BY SR1 VISHNU BHAT. NCGSC]



WP 37785/2002

I10

THIS PE'I'I'I'ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONS'T'I"I"'U'"T'ION OF' INIHA FPAWNG TO QUASH 
ORDER/LETTER DT. 12.7.2000 VIDE ANN-C BY R3. "

THIS PETITION COMING on FOR HEARING, Ti}l'SV'I)__ﬁiY,:V'1?HE
coum MADE THE FOLLOWING:   _ * -3  1 

___e_oRn Re 

rm. ......, :_ __L_11__.:__',;1_L, --..._.'..av.'..;.".-...}A..'..'._._'.-..I.--V4;_..
1. La Luz-.I.l.u_:u]5I.ug l..Lu:x_ £«'U.lI.l.lll.!.,i_1.l..l|.F&.I.Il.JI'l. UIIEGLI.

.. ._..£.}J..'_
ILIC WEED

ﬁnd

12.7.2ouu'"' issued by the 3rd iesiibndent     iie
has also sought for a  hisservices and to

continue him in his empioyrnerit;    ii

'2. "The     was taken as a casual
Lighting  during December 1986
and   It is his contention that
when  he alongwith six other

colleagues were  placed, approached the Central

. ..  _   in 0.A.Nos.908 55 1043 to 1048 of 1995

   of their services. By order dated

'Ii-e', Q 'ICICER  l"n1-rl-Inn' ﬂrin-vii.-I-|1'aI'-III-.|I-I'IuI '1':-ﬂ'|'I'Ir|nl l":ﬂ'I"Il'IQﬁl'; rrr fl-an
I-Us-PI J.7,y\_a-, 'I-1'! \./Irlll-[H-1 lII.I.l.l.I.I.I.l.l.i!luI.G.l.lV\r l.l.lIJl.|.l.l.E.I. '4I.lh"l-'\I\;"ef'-K 'll In-I-"I

 oiiginiﬁsippiicaiions with a direction to the respondents to

orders on the request made for regularisation. Since the petitioner and his other colleagues were not regularised, they ﬁled W.P.No.266-47-53 of 1998 before this Court. The writ iffy WP 37785/2002 <30 petitions came to be disposed of on 7.3.2000 with a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of petiﬁon.e1s_:'i1._ to 6 therein, 'enemas in so far as m..*..i.o*'-..t-r no. ....... ........ ..... t.-vi:-.9 is the present petitioner in writ petit:ion,.- submit a teptesentation ;_.the respondents were directed to oon_sider"tl_ie' accordance with law. A copy said iioidieriof Court is produced as the order, the petitioner made a to~~.V.tii4t_-oft!' respondent on 18.4.2000. :_The:;:3*d 'considered the said 4- 4t .- .1 ° I'E§1'8"6r.u'-.''1I.ia'}i''.|. ; &i.'ﬁ.u. 'tS':1-cu. Law" """"'l'i"""'€d CG""u.uu""'u:.un.'"""&*'uu"I'.t lf\IlnﬂXI;iI1'B*!l'.f hisdrequest' for reguiarisation. it is Luis' communicntion in tins' ' Writ petition. .1 .n.r1nh¢n-on-in-tuning:-u'I'l'¢II| a II can nnnn-In-can -In-so-I-1-u In-'III'! an 4» n 'J 'WILLS IENV CI§ K-I.-'I.\.a xesponcient "not considered the case of the petitioner for in accordance with the scheme for regularisation keeping in mind _the oﬁicial memorandum '-.dsted 17.3.1994 issued in this regard mentioning the criteria for it ..._-sziomputing the number of days of service put in by the casual staff artist during the relevant period. bu; / L)' WP 37785} 2002

4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner ﬁled alongwith a memo, a copy of _ 1 1904 mhmh lusts ".;;._,r ..t.....

refuxm"'"*"""t'io'* of "tists regard to the computation of numberfiv of Zdny-st sersiicc rendered. As per the said memorandunry the oiidnysjiof senrice put in by the staﬂ' fee: T of regularisation under tovheucomputed by considering the correct relevant period divided by the wages the State during the televnmt ..'a=.-.t.... that i. a an aggregate of Rs.1,5t5€'.i; tin' a for working 10 days or for 2-3 ass1gnm' _ _ ents-in appinonth the m1nun' ' um wage prevalent in '~ atthe time was Rs.50/-, the staff artist would worked for 30 days in a month. (i.e., Rs; 1500/ ll petitioner has not made any reference to this dated 17.3.94 in the writ petition. Therefore, the _,_Sl:ate of Objections ﬁled by the respondents does not refer to this material. But the fact remains that this is a document lcéav L/' WP 37785/9002 U1 which pertains to the seheme for regularisation of casual artists ir1_D __a_rs@;a.ndt.h__iswa_sissnﬁa_shac1ras Illﬂ run the rnet...-ed ofc$nls.fir-.g the r1'.:rn....r' 0 "'="¢ of °-r'"'='7r_'-*--.,'*"?. it'! by the casuai artist as enumerated in 9 is applied to the other employees who ear regularisation, it is needless to " the entitled for the said beneﬁt for eoeeeeeeoo nunrher of days of service put in by him;

6. A does not disclose relevant facts and materiaiswltﬂ employee had worked only for 9 da_ys--.i1aAV.t98-6'vtfdays-i in 1987 as mentioned in the representation petitioner on 18.4.2000, he was nr_1t_:{:1'_,,i£rI_1\.1t_-. for ~ risatlon as h had not fulﬁlled the I :

I I I. '-

> is 1 uhou be by the authoritie is ti:i.e days ofserv1oe' put in by the empioyee as couid be from the records available with the authorities. Jvlhat is"stated by the petitioner in his representation is one and e._"w_hs.t-eiactually is the factual position is yet another. The VA ...atithorities are duty hound to examine their records and find it out the number of days of service put in by the petitioner. They 314/ \/ " ..... Iuag""' WP 37785/2002 axealsomqujmdtoexamineifthe methodprovidedinthc Oﬂicial Memorandum dated 17.3.1994 for the

-1' d....ys 91-' is applicable m _¢.-.;

7. In View of the above, this allowed and accordingly the anec" ted to mconsider in the of the obsexvaﬁonafmade as expeditiously as months fvom the date of Sd/-3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court