Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Jayanthi vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION Nos.51400-51468 OF 2014 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION Nos.55020-55063 OF 2014 (S-REG)
W.P. Nos.51400-51468 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. MRS.JAYANTHI
D/O RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2. MAHADEVA
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED 48 YEARS
3. SIDDAPPA
S/O GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
4. T. GOVINDAPPA
S/O THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
5. LAKKAMMA
W/O RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
6. SHANKAR
S/O ANNEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2
7. K. THIMMA
S/O KALIAYA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
8. RAJU
S/O THIMMARAYAPPA,,
AGED 48 YEARS
9. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
10. GANGAPPA
S/O MUNIYALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
11. CHANDRE GOWDA
S/O LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
12. M.S.SIDAMMA
D/O MARILINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
13. K.LAKSHMAMMA
W/O D.K. KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
14. YALLAMMA
W/O NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
15. K.R. PRASANNAIAH,
S/O K.G. RAJASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
16. KARIYANNA
3
S/O MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
17. NAGARAJ
S/O KEMPALINGAIAH @ JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
18. KEMPAMMA
W/O NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
19. KABBALIGOWDA
S/O ANNIKE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
20. NARASIMAIAH,
S/O NARASHIMA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
21. LAKSHMANA
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
22. MUDDEGOWDA
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
23. SHAMBULINGA
S/O MADAV GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
24. VENKATEGOWDA
S/O HANUMAIAH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4
25. KATTAKALLI THIMMAMMA
W/O MUDDIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
26. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
27. AKKAYAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
28. PARVATHAMMA
C/O SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
29. SRIDHAR
S/O LAKHMINARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
30. KEMPAMMA
W/O PUTTASWAMY,,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
31. JAYAMMA
W/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
32. CHINNASWAMY
S/O KARIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
33. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
5
34. RENUKA PRASAD
S/O REVANNA,,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
35. KEMPVEERIGOWDA,
S/O MARUVEERAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
36. BOREGOWDA
S/O BETTAIAH,,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
37. K.KRISHNAPPA
S/O CHIKKAPUR SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
38. MALLIKARJUN
S/O MARUVEERAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
39. SAKKAMMA
W/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
40. KALAVATHI
W/O KODANDARAMAIAH,
AGED 47 YEARS
41. GOVINDAPPA
S/O KITTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
42. VENKATAPPA
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
43. MUTTAIAH,
6
S/O CHINGIRI GOWDA,,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
44. PUTTASWAMY
S/O ANDANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
45. JAYAMMA
W/O NARASHIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
46. JAYAMMA
W/O MALLEGOWDA,,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
47. GANGADHARA
S/O NANJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
48. CHIKKANNA
S/O RANGAIAH,
AGED 50 YEARS
49. JAYAMMA
W/O NARASAIAH,,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
50. BASAVARAJ
S/O MADAIAH,,
AGED 48 YEARS
51. CHINNAPPA
S/O MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
52. BAGHYAMMA
W/O GANGABORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
7
53. SINGARAPPA
S/O DODDABATTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
54. VENKATAMMA
W/O SRINIVAS,,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
55. VENKATTARAMU
S/O YALLAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
56. KALEGOWDA
S/O KEMPAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
57. MANGALAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
58. CHANDRAMMA
W/O KARAGAIAH,
AGED 59 YEARS
59. RUKMINIYAMMA
W/O VITTAL NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
60. MANJULA
W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
61. T. RAJU
W/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
62. CHINAGIRI
S/O THIMMAIAH,
8
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
63. MURTHI
S/O GURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
64. PARVATAMMA
S/O HANUMAYA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
65. MALLIKA
W/O PARASHURAM,,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
66. LAKSHMMAMMA
W/O BORLINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
67. HONNAIAH
S/O CHIKKAEIDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
68. G. GOVINDAIAH
S/O GURUVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
BETTARAYANADODDI,
BANNERGATTA POST,
ANEKAL TQ - 83
69. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O PUTTAMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 69
ARE WORKING AS GARDENERS
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AND
DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE
CUBBON PARK AND LALBAGH,
9
BANGALORE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N R RAVIKUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
KARNATAKA, LALBAGH,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
HORTICULTURE,
CUBBON PARK,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NITIN RAMESH, AAG FOR
SRI.Y.H.VIJAY KUMAR, AGA FOR R1-R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD.20.8.2014 VIDE ANNEX-G.
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF
PETITIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION
OF 10 YEARS OF THEIR SERVICES AND FURTHER DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE SALARY AND OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION
OF PETITIONERS 10 YEARS OF SERVICE AND ARREARS OF
SALARY WITH INTEREST.
10
IN W.P. Nos.55020-55063 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SIDDAMMA
W/O SHIVASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1555-1,
GANGANADI ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE.
2. RAMAIAH
S/O THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.6/34, 6TH CROSS,
16TH MAIN ROAD, J.C.NAGAR,
KURUBARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560049.
3. K BASAVARAJU
S/O BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.371,
2ND CROSS,
CHANDRAPPA ROAD,
KAMALANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
4. SHIVAMMA
W/O VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
GOVINDARAJANAGAR,
1409, HOSING BOARD,
2ND CROSS, BANGALORE.
5. MOTTAIAH
S/O MUNITHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48YEARS,
11
RESIDING AT NO.790.
7TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN ROAD,
SRINIVASANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560050.
6. PUTTARAJU
S/O LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.118/1,
11TH CROSS, SHIVAPURA,
BACKSIDE TO NTTF,
BANGALORE.
7. P.KRISHNAPPA
S/O PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.13,
2ND CROSS, BILEKAHALLI LAYOUT,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
8. RAMA
S/O NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
GARDENER,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
HORTICULTURE,
CUBBON PARK.
9. HUCCHEGOWDA
S/O K.KULLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.92,
K.G.NAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI,
BANGALORE.
10. NAGARAJ
S/O JAVAREGOWDA,
12
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.61/4,
6TH MAIN ROAD,
BANAGIRINAGAR,
NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE,
BANGALORE.
11. M NAGARAJ
S/O MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.25,
25TH CROSS, K.P.AGRAHARA.
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE.
12. KANTHAMMA
W/O MALLEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DINNUR,
R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE.
13. JAYAMMA
W/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT R.T.NAGAR,
KAVALBYRASANDRA,
BANGALORE.
14. C LAKSHMAMMA
D/O CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.316,
VENKATARAMANAGAR SLUM,
CHAMARAJAPET,
BBMP, BANGALORE.
15. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O MUDALAGIRI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
13
RESIDING AT
KAMAKSHIPALYA,
BANGALORE.
16. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O CHELUVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.7,
BLOCK NO.12,
K.S.D.B., NEW QUARTERS,
KAVERINAGAR, LAKSHMIDEVINAGAR,
BANGALORE.
17. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O CHIKKAKARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.438, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
BINNY COLONY,
BASAWESHWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
18. H NAGARAJ
S/O KUNNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.240,
7TH A CROSS, SHASTRINAGAR,
JAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE.
19. T GUDDADARANGAPPA
S/O THIMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.123/1,
2ND MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
PANCHASHEELANAGAR,
MUDALAPALYA,
BANGALORE.
20. VASANTHAMMA
14
W/O LATE SRI.RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
NO.29, V.R.ANANTHAMURTHY ROAD,
NEELAGIRITHOPU,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS,
SUNKADAKATTE,
BANGALORE.
21. V VASU
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YENTAGANAHALLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
22. MADAMMA
W/O MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.25,
MILSANDRA,
HARSHA LAYOUT,
KENGERI, BANGALORE.
23. MUNISWAMY
S/O MUTTAHHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.150/1,
3RD CROSS, 80 FEET ROAD,
RANGAPPANILAYA,
BASAPPA LAYOUT,
MALLATHALLI,
BANGALORE.
24. SAVITRAMMA
W/O.VENKATACHALA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.87,
MARUTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
15
BANGALORE.
25. SHIVANNA
S/O LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.50,
3RD CROSS, MANJUNATHNAGAR,
ITTAMDAU, BSK III STAGE,
BANGALORE.
26. SAJJANARAO
S/O HARIRAO,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22,
5TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD,
AGRAHARA, 5TH CROSS,
BANGALORE.
27. B L NAGARAJ
S/O LATE SRI.LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.59, SAKAMMA GARDEN,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
7TH CROSS, BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE.
28. SHANTHA
W/O THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.4,
2ND CROSS,
G.M.RAMAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT,
GEDDALAHALLI,
BANGALORE.
29. KRISHNA R
S/O RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.127,
16
JAIMARUTHINAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE.
30. R NARSINGA RAO
S/O RAMA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.32,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
5TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS,
3RD BLOCK, SGS EXTENSION,
BANGALORE.
31. VENKATESH
S/O HONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HONNAGANHATTI,
TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE.
32. RANGAPPA
S/O HALLIRANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.46,
THIPPENAHALLI,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
NAGASANDRA POST,
DODDABIDRAKALLU,
BANGALORE
33. LAKSHMINARASAIAH
S/O DODDARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
KEMPADALIHALLI,
HALUDODDERI POST,
KORA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK.
17
34. GURUMALLAIAH
S/O LATE MADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SURAKAHALLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK.
KIRGAVALU HOBLI,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
35. PANDURANGA
S/O NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF
MADALAKUNTE,
MADAKASIRA TALUK.
36. LAKSHMANA
S/O LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
HULIVANA GRAMA,
YEDIYUR HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
37. THIMMAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.166,
3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BASAWESHWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
38. ARASAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.204,
1ST CROSS, TIMBER LAYOUT,
SANJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
18
39. HONNAIAH
S/O LATE HONNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOSKEEREHALLI,
CHOWDAPPA FLOOR MILL,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BANGALORE.
40. NARASINGA RAO
S/O YELLOJIRAO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO.75, 12TH CROSS,
SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE.
41. SIDDAIAH
S/O MARIMADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO/16/2,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
23RD CROSS,
BHUWANESHWARINAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE.
42. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.121,
MAHARAJAMILL HOUSE,
44TH MAIN ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE.
43. GOPAL RAJ URS
S/O PUTTAMADARAJ URS,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
GARDENER,
GAMANHALLI,
19
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
WORKING AT
SENIOR ASST. DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
MANDYA.
44. SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O NINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
GARDENER,
WORKING AT SENIOR ASST. DIRECTOR
OF HORTICULTURE,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
MANDYA.
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 42
ARE WORKING AS GARDENER'S
OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR AND DIRECTORATE OF
HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENTS,
CUBBON PARK AND LALBAGH,
BANGALORE ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N.R.RAVIKUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
KARNATAKA, LALBAGH,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
20
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
HORTICULTURE, CUBBON PARK,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NITIN RAMESH, AAG FOR
SRI.VIJAY KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DT.20.8.2014 UNDER ANNX-F
ISSUED BY R-2. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE
THE SERVICE OF PETITIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE
OF COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF THEIR SERVICES AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY
THE SALARY AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE
DATE OF COMPLETION OF PETITIONERS 10 YEARS OF SERVICE
AND ARREARS OF SALARY WITH INTEREST.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in these petitions have made a prayer to set aside Annexure-G dated 20th August 2014 rejecting the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. They have also sought for a direction to the respondents to regularise their services with effect from the date of completion of ten years of their service and also to pay the salary and other consequential benefits from the date of completion of their ten years of service. 21
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working with the respondents on daily wage basis for about 20- 30 years; whereas initial appointment varies from one petitioner to other right from 10th November 1984, 1986, etc. Having rendered services with the respondents for such a along time, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not regularising their services is contrary to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners earlier had approached this court in Writ Petition Nos.15483-15565 of 2004 for relief of mandamus and by its order dated 16th April 2004 the said writ petitions were disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation within a period of three months. In compliance of directions in the said writ petitions, an endorsement has been issued to the petitioners stating that in similar set of cases which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.3112-3114 of 2001 and till the disposal of the said case, the direction of this Court in Writ Petitions No.15483-15565 of 2004 cannot be complied with. Some of the persons who are similarly situated like the petitioners serving in different departments preferred writ 22 petitions No.39117-176 of 1999 claiming regularisation of their services and this Court by its order dated 15th December 1999 granted relief with a direction to regularise their services. The learned counsel submits that these petitioners also stand on a similar footing and they are entitled for regularisation of their services by granting similar relief. He further submits that in respect of the very same department where the petitioners are working some of the employees have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.3338 of 2014 in which a direction was issued to the authorities to pass the order regularising the services of the employees (74 in number) which will now be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two moths from the date of receipt of the order. Hence, the learned counsel submits that petitioners herein are also entitled for similar benefits.
3. After the disposal of the said Special Leave Petition, the representations of the petitioners made pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petitions No.15483-15565 of 2004 was considered and rejected as per Annexure-G dated 20th August, 2014. The 23 impugned action in rejecting the case of the petitioners is contrary to law. Hence, the same is to be set aside and case of the petitioners is to be considered for regularisation of their services. In support of his case, the learned counsel also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 and referred to paragraph 53 of the judgment.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General submits to dismiss these petitions. He submits that for the purpose of considering the cases of this nature, the learned Additional Advocate General refers circular dated 13th November 2006 and as per the conditions stipulated therein; and unless and until if the petitioners satisfy the said conditions, the cases of the petitioners cannot be considered. The said Circular was issued pursuant to the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions No.3595-3612 of 1999 disposed of on 10th April 2006. The conditions are:
24
(i) They must be working against the sanctioned vacant post;
(ii) They must possess educational qualification qualifying to the said post;
(iii) They must have served for more than ten years without there being any interim order passed by the Court;
(iv) Without any interim order from the Court if they have served for more than ten years, their cases has to be considered.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General refers to Daily-wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 which does not enure to the benefit of these petitioners and submits that the petitioners having not been covered under this Act they are not entitled for regularisation of their services and hence the petitions be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In support of the case of the petitioners that they are working on daily wage since 1984 and on different dates, Annexure-A has been produced which is the list that consists the names of about 69 persons, from which it cannot make out as to whether that is the 25 appointment order that has been furnished by the respondent. But, from the list it could be found out that Annexure-A is the same as Annexure-R1 produced by the respondents. Since the names of the petitioners in Annexure-A have found place in Annexure-R1 produced by the respondents, it shows that these petitioners are working with respondents since 20-30 years. Earlier these petitioners have approached this Court and sought relief of regularisation, but the case of the petitioners was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders and since the said representation of the petitioners has been rejected, now they are before this Court. In the interregnum, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra) at paragraph 53 of the judgment has observed thus:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of 26 tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this day. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
7. As per the said judgment in order to find out whether the appointments of the petitioner is illegal or irregular, I have gone through the list Annexure-A furnished by the petitioners and also Annexure-R1 furnished by the respondents wherein the respondents have made correspondence in which the names of 27 the petitioners in these petitions have been found. Nothing is produced to this Court as to whether they were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts. If the Government could produce any list of this nature to the extent that these posts are sanctioned vacant posts, then it could have been worked out for the purpose of relief. The Government also is not in a position to produce whether the posts of these persons who are working on daily wage basis, are sanctioned vacant posts or not. One thing which is undisputed is that the petitioners are continuously working on daily wages for the past 20-30 years and also it is the case of the respondents that no regular recruitment has been made since then. This goes to show that the petitioners are working against the sanctioned posts but the respondents have not made any attempt to make any regular recruitment or appointment to the said posts. Under these circumstances, it is to be stated that these petitioners are working continuously against the sanctioned posts. If at all, if it is disputed by the respondents, they could have produced any orders or notifications to prove their case that these posts are not sanctioned posts and since it is an undisputed fact that these 28 petitioners are working on daily wage basis for such a long time that too against the posts which could have been utilized by issuing proper Notification for regular recruitment and that as on today no such recruitment is made, it is to be held that the petitioners are working in the sanctioned posts or it is to be declared that their working continuously for such a long time, is to be treated as they are working on regularly sanctioned posts. In conformity to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra), the Government issued Circular No.SSE 25 SSA 2003(B) dated 13th November 2006 wherein some conditions were stipulated which are referred to above. For the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners, the same is repeated again.
(i) They must be working against the sanctioned vacant post;
(ii) They must possess educational qualification qualifying to the said post;
(iii) They must have served for more than ten years without there being any interim order passed by the Court;29
(iv) Without any interim order from the Court if they have served for more than ten years, their cases has to be considered.
8. With respect to the said Circular the case of the petitioners has been examined. As is observed earlier, these petitioners have served for more than 20-30 years, which is to be inferred that they worked against the sanctioned vacant posts. Though they have not been officially appointed by the Government, but it is to be declared as if they are working against the sanctioned posts since no regular recruitment has been made by the respondent Government.
8. Secondly, these petitioners are working as Gardeners for which requisite qualification has not been prescribed. Initially, for appointment also there was no Cadre and Recruitment Rules published. The prescribed requisite qualification is the length of service of 20-30 years, which in my considered view, is sufficient and a better experience for these posts.
30
9. Hereinafter the Respondent-Government is directed to make the regular recruitment and before that it should come up with prescribed requisite qualification. But, this requisite qualification is not to be made applicable to the petitioners since they have been working with the respondents for more than 20- 30 years. Secondly, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working against the sanctioned vacant posts for the past more than ten years. As per the conditions of the Circular referred to above, and as observed earlier, since the petitioners are working for more than 20-30 years, they have acquired the relevant qualification to the posts of Gardeners; and it is also not the case of the Government that they are discharging their duties on daily wage on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra) comes to the aid of the petitioners which has been reduced in the form of Circular by the Government and all the conditions stipulated in the Circular have been satisfied and hence the petitioners are entitled for no shorter relief than regularisation of service. 31
10. In the case of UMADEVI (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of irregular appointment (not illegal appointment) where appointment is against the sanctioned vacant post and where such employees are working continuously for more than ten years and not by intervention of any court order, they are entitled for regularisation. The said decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand as the facts and circumstances in this case is similar to that.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of STATE OF JHARKAND AND OTHERS v. KAMAL PRASAD AND OTHERS reported in (2014)7 SCC 223 at paragraph 46 of the judgment has observed thus:
"In view of the legal principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the decision of the High Court does not fall in either of the categories mentioned above which calls for our interference. The respondent employees have continuously worked in their posts for more than 29 years discharging permanent nature of duties and they have been paid their salaries and other service benefits out of the budget allocation, no objection was raised by CAG in this regard and therefore, it is not open for the appellants to content that the law laid 32 down in Umadevi (3) case has no application to the fact situation. The action of the appellants in terminating the services of the respondent employees who have rendered continuous service in their posts during pendency of the letters patent appeals was quashed by the High Court after it has felt that the action is not only arbitrary but shocks its conscience and therefore it has rightly exercised its discretionary power and granted the reliefs to the respondent employees which do not call for our interference. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this Court will not interfere with the opinion of the High Court and on the contrary, we will uphold the decision of the High court on factual and legal aspects as the same is legally correct and it has done justice to the respondent employees."
12. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMADEVI and in the case of KAMAL PRASAD (supra) and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3338 of 2014 in the case of MALATI DAS (Retd.) now P.B. Mahishy and others V. Suresh and Others, I have gone through the materials provided and I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners' case is to be examined by the respondents for the purpose of regularisation. 33
13. In the light of the above discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The petitions are allowed.
2. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services and for payment of salary and consequential benefits.
3. Time for compliance is three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn