Karnataka High Court
Manjunath And Ors vs The Karnataka Power Transmission And ... on 30 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.201565/2018
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.207310/2017,
WRIT PETITION NO.208470/2017,
WRIT PETITION NO.200642/2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.201889/2018,
WRIT PETITION NO.203631/2018
W.P. NO.201565/2018:
BETWEEN:
SHREEDHAR U.,
S/O U. FAKEERAMMA
AGE 47 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT,
AT KUDALAGI SUB-DIVN. KUDALAGI,
R/O WARD NO.12, HOSPET ROAD,
KUDALAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VILAS KUMAR MARTHANAD ROU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-09.
2
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
BENGALURU-09.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGANGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. S.S.NAGANANDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI.
RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.UÀÄ.«.PÀA./¥Àæ ªÀå/¯É®/¸À¯C
É /»¸À-
1/2015-16/CYS-153 DATED 04.07.2015 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G AND
CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OR MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERIVCES/REINSTATEMENT
THE PETITIONER AND REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE
PETITIONER WITH HIS INITIAL DATE OF APPOINTMENT UNDER
THE RESPONDENTS WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND
ETC.
W.P. NO.207310/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATH
S/O SIDRAMAPPA BHALKI
3
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: METER READING WORK
AT BHALKI SUB-DIVN. BHALKI,
R/O LIG-4, KHB COLONY, BHALKI
DIST. BIDAR.
2. HANMANTHA
S/O RAMCHANDRA NAYAK
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC. METER READING
WORK AT KARATAGI SECTION IN GANGAVATI,
R/O KUNIKERI TANDA
POST KUNIKERI, DIST. KOPPAL.
3. M.RAJESH
S/O M. NARASOJI
AGE 46 YEARS OCC.METER READING
WORK AT SEDAM SUB DIVN.
SEDAM- 585 222 TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI
4. MALLIKARJUN REDDY
S/O TEJAPPA
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
AT YADGIR SUB-DIVISION, YADGIR.
R/O BILHAR-585 355
TQ. SHAHAPUR DIST. YADGIR.
5. JOSEPH
S/O HASANAPPA AGE 42 YEARS,
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. METER READING WORK
AT SEDAM SUB-DIVISION, SEDAM-585 222
DIST. KALABURAGI.
6. SOMANATH
S/O BABURAO YEWALE
AGE 40 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. PRAKASH
S/O GURUNATHAPPA CHANNAMALLE
4
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: METER READING WORK
AT SUB-DIVISION OFFICE, BASAVA KALYAN,
R/O MAHADEVI COLONY, SHIVAPUR ROAD,
TRIPURANTHA 585 327, BASAVA KALYAN
DIST. BIDAR.
8. DATTATREYA
S/O BHASKAR RAO
AGE 42 YEAR, OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE WORK
AT SUB-DIVISION OFFICE, CHITAGUPPA,
TQ.HUMANABAD
R/O PLOT NO.102 KUSNOOR ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
9. MANJAPPA
S/O KOTREPPA A.D.
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT
GESCOM SUB-DIVISION OFFICE, MANVI
DIST. RAICHUR
R/O POST. CHANNAGIRI, DIST. DAWANAGERA.
10. HALESH. K.H.
S/O HONNAPPA A.D.
AGE 39 YEARS,
OCC: METER READING WORK AT
GESCOM SUB-DIVISION OFFICE, YELABURGA.
DIST. KOPPAL.
R/O MALE KOMBALURU,
TQ. HONNALLI, DIST. DAWANAGERE.
11. HANMANTHAPPA G.B.
S/O BASETAPPA
AGE 39 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
GESCOM SUB-DIVISION, MANVI.
DIST. RAICHUR.
R/O MALE KOMBALURU
TQ. HONNALLI, DIST. DAWANAGERE.
12. RADHA SREEDHAR
D/O Y.K.SURESH
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
GESCOM HOSPETH SUB-DIVISION,
5
R/O C/O GURURAJRAO BSNL (RETD).
PANCHAMUKHI COLONY,
NEAR PANCHAMUKHI HANUMAN TEMPLE, RAICHUR.
13. I. THIPPALAH
S/O I.CHINNAIAH
AGE 53 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASST.
GESCOM SUB-DIVISION KURUGODU
RURAL SUB-DIVISION BELLARY.
R/O 78/27, KADAPA STREET,
C.B. COLONY, BELLARY.
14. MOHD. RAFIQ
S/O T.ABDUL GAFAAR
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
GESCOM, TEKKALAKOTE SECTION SUB-DIVISION,
SIRAGUPPA DIST. BELLARY.
R/O IST WARD, MADINA NAGAR
SIRAGUPPA
15. BASAPPA
S/O SANGAPPA MORKI
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION,
GESCOM, KOPPAL.
R/O POST. HADALGERI TQ.MUDDEBIHAL
DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
16. ABDUL RAUF
S/O KHATAL AHMED
AGE 46 YEARS. OCC. LEDGER MAINTENANCE
SUB-DIVISION OFFICE, SEDAM
DIST. KALABURAGI
R/O MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, KEB COLONY,
SEDAM DIST. KALABURAGI.
17. BASALINGAPPA K.H.
S/O HONNAPPA H.
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
AT YELBURAGA SUB-DIVISION,
DIST., KOPPAL.
R/O HOLE KAMBALURU POST
TQ. HONNALLI DIST. DAWANAGERE.
6
18. K. RAVIKANTH
S/O K.NAGARAJCHARYA
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: LEDGER ASSISTANT IN
SUB DIVISION OFFICE, GANGAVATHI
DIST. KOPPAL.
19. BHIMANAIK
S/O PUTTA NAIK
AGE 38 YRS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT AND
LEDGER MAINTENANCE,
SUB DIVISION OFFICE, GANGAVATHI
DIST. KOPPAL.
20. NIJALINGAPPA D.
S/O DEVINDRAPPA A.D.
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN
CSD-II, UNIT NO.4, GESCOM, KALABURAGI.
R/O KATTALGERA TQ. CHENNAGIRI
DIST. DAWANAGERA.
21. M.S.CHANDRAMOHAN
S/O SEETARAM
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
RAICHUR SUB-DIVISION,
GESCOM, RAICHUR.
R/O WARD NO.34, POST ASKIHAL
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
22. SHANMUKAPPA
S/O GUDDAPPA
ARAKERI AGE 42 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN
KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION, GESCOM KOPPAL.
R/O TUMMANKATTI POST, CHOWDESHWAR
DISTRICT HAVERI.
23. RAMESH
S/O SHIVAPPA EANAHALLI
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
IN DIVISION OFFICE, GESCOM, KOPPAL.
R/O NEAR HINDI B.ED. COLLEGE,
GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
7
24. R.SUDHAKAR
S/O R. SHANKAR SHASTRI
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
MUNEERABAD SUB-DIVISION,
DIVISION OFFICE, GESCOM, KOPPAL.
R/O M.J. NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, HOSPETH.
25. MARUTI N.
S/O LATE M.K. NAGAPPA
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASST.
GESCOM SUB-DIVISION, RAICHUR.
R/O NMC 1ST CROSS, LEFT SIDE HOSAMANE,
BHADRAVATI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
26. SHIVAKERI SIDDAPPA A.D.
S/O HONNAPPA A.D.
AGE 51 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN
HARAPANALLI SUB-DIVISION,
GESCOM, HARAPANALLI.
R/O DAWANGERE TALUKA & DISTRICT.
27. NETRAVATI
D/O NAGAPPA
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT,
SUB-DIVISION HARANAPANALLI, GESCOM,
R/O 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
J.C.EXTENSION,
28. CHOWADAPPA
S/O CHALUVADINAGAPPA
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
SUB-DIVISION SINDHANOOR,
SINDHANOOR DIST. RAICHUR
R/O SRI SAINATH FILLING STATION,
GANGAVATHI ROAD, SINDHANOOR.
29. SRIDEVI
D/O HANMANTHAPPA
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
CSD-II, UNIT NO.9, GESCOM,
KALABURAGI.
R/O H.NO.11-885/1, MSK MILL ROAD,
BASAVA NAGAR, KALABURAGI.
8
30. NAGARATNA
D/O LATE BADEPPA
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
MANVI SUB DIVISION, RAICHUR.
R/O DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
MARAGAMMA TEMPLE, RAICHUR.
31. SANTOSH
S/O NARAYANREDDY
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASST.
SHAHABAD SUB-DIVISION, SHAHABAD,
R/O NEAR SAI MANDIR, JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
32. DIGAMBAR
S/O VEDAPRAKASHAPPA
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
SHAHABAD SUB-DIVISION, SHAHABAD,
R/O C/O NAGARAJ NEELAYYA,
GUBBI COLONY, SEDAM ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VILASKUMAR MARTHAND RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-09.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
KAVERI BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
BENGALURU-09.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
9
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. S.S.NAGANANDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH
RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.3, 4,
AND 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.UÀÄ.«.PÀA./¥Àæ ªÀå/¯É®/¸À¯C
É /»¸À-
1/2015-16/CYS-153 DATED 04.07.2015 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-H AND
CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OR MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES/REINSTATEMENT
THE PETITIONERS AND REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF ALL THE
PETITIONERS WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE DATE OF THEIR
ORIGINAL/INITIAL APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE RESPONDENTS
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AS PER ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.
W.P. NO.208470/2017:
BETWEEN:
MARUTHI
S/O HANMANTHAPPA
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL
(EX.LEDGER MAINTENANCE)
R/O C/O GURURAJRAO BSNL (RETD.)
PANCHAMUKHI COLONY,
NEAR PANCHAMUKHI HANUMAN TEMPLE,
RAICHUR-584101.
...PETITIONER
10
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-09.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
BENGALURU-09.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT
NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. S.S.NAGANANDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI.
RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.UÀÄ.«.PÀA./¥Àæ ªÀå/¯É®/¸À¯C
É /»¸À-
1/2015-16/CYS-153 DATED 04.07.2015 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-H AND
CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OR MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES/REINSTATEMENT
THE PETITIONER AND REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE
11
PETITIONER WITH HIS RESPECTIVE DATE OF HIS
ORIGINAL/INITIAL APPOINTMENT UNDER THE RESPONDENTS
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AS PER ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
W.P. NO.200642/2018:
BETWEEN:
KUBERA
S/O GHALEPPA
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL
(EX.HELPER)
R/O C/O AMBOJI ROA SURYAVANSHI,
DHANAGAR GALLI, BRAHMAPUR,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...PETITIONER
(SRI. VILAS KUMAR MARTHAND RAO, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-09.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
BENGALURU-09.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
12
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT
NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. S.S.NAGANANDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI.
RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.UÀÄ.«.PÀA./¥Àæ ªÀå/¯É®/¸À¯C
É /»¸À-
1/2015-16/CYS-153 DATED 04.07.2015 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-H AND
CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OR MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES/REINSTATEMENT
THE PETITIONER AND REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE
PETITIONER WITH HIS RESPECTIVE DATE OF HIS
ORIGINAL/INITIAL APPOINTMENT UNDER THE RESPONDENTS
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AS PER ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
W.P. NO.201889/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. PRABHAKAR
S/O HAJAPPA MALAGE
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE
SUB-DIVN. NO.2, GESCOM, KALABURAGI
R/O H.NO.1-1236, AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. BABURAO
S/O BASANNA HANGARGI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE
SUB-DIVN. NO.2, GESCOM, KALABURAGI
R/O H.NO.1-1236, AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
13
3. SHIVARAYA
S/O SHRIMANTH
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE
RURAL SUB-DIVISION, MANNA EKKAHALLI,
DIST. BIDAR.
R/O H.NO.208, GANESH NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VILAS KUMAR MARTHAND RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-09.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
BENGALURU-09.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. S.S.NAGANANDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI.
RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5)
14
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.UÀÄ.«.PÀA./¥Àæ ªÀå/¯É®/¸À¯C
É /»¸À-
1/2015-16/CYS-153 DATED 04.07.2015 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE
SERVICES/REINSTATEMENT THE PETITIONERS AND
REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS WITH THEIR
RESPECTIVE DATE OF THEIR ORIGINAL/INITIAL APPOINTMENTS
UNDER THE RESPONDENTS WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
W.P. NO.203631/2018:
BETWEEN:
NIRMAL KUMAR
S/O GNANAMITRA
AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
AT SHORAPUR SUB-DIVN. YADGIR
R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
NO.13TH CROSS, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.VILAS KUMAR MARTHAND RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-09.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
BENGALURU-09.
15
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT
NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. S.S.NAGANANDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI.
RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.UÀÄ.«.PÀA./¥Àæ ªÀå/¯É®/¸À¯C
É /»¸À-
1/2015-16/CYS-153 DATED 04.07.2015 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.4 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G AND
CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OR MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES/REINSTATE THE
PETITIONER AND REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE
PETITIONER FROM HIS INITIAL DATE OF APPOINTMENT UNDER
THE RESPONDENTS WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND
ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 06.08.2021 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
16
ORDER
In all these petitions, the petitioners have sought for quashing the endorsement dated 04.07.2015 issued by the respondent No.2, refusing to regularise the services of temporary meter readers on contract basis. The petitioners have also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to continue the services/reinstate the petitioner and regularise their service from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits. They have also prayed that the benefits extended to the petitioners in W.P.No.101460- 101467/2013 be granted to them.
2. The petitioners in these cases were all appointed on temporary basis as follows;
Writ Petition Appointed as Appointed on Worked 201565/2018 Ledger 09-09-1998 Till 2010 Maintenance/ Junior Assistant 207310/2017 Meter reading 1999-2000 Till 2010 workers/ Junior Assistant/Ledger Maintenance 17 208470/2017 Ledger 19-08-1999 Till 2010 Maintenance cum Junior Assistant 200642/2018 Helper 19-08-1999 Till 2012 201889-891/2018 Ledger Assistant Nov 1999 - Till 2010 Junior Assistant March 2000 203631/2018 Junior Assistant 10-11-1999 Till 2010
3. The petitioners have all attempted to explain the delay in filing the present writ petitions by contending that similarly situated employees had approached this Court and favourable orders were passed but due to their financial difficulties, they could not join the others in filing the writ petition.
4. The petitioners claim that they were all appointed on ad hoc or temporary or contract basis against permanent vacancies in compliance with the applicable roster. They claimed that in respect of Gangmen, an official memorandum dated 21.09.2007 was issued treating them as Mazdoors on probation and were treated later as permanent employees. Likewise in respect of Assistant Engineers who were appointed in the year 2003, the respondent passed a resolution dated 16.03.2007 18 regularizing their services. This was questioned in W.P.No.7425/2007, which was disposed off upholding the validity of the resolution. Similar orders followed in W.P.No.5975-6012/2012. The petitioners claim that though their appointment was only for 60 days, they were continued till the year 2010-12, without any break in service.
5. The petitioners claim that though their appointments were temporary or ad hoc, all the requirements for recruitment of permanent employees were followed. They claim that an interview was held and taking into consideration the roster, age, marks scored in the qualifying examination, performance in the interview etc., they were selected. They also claimed that the work performed by them was permanent in nature and not temporary. Further the petitioners claim that the respondent had informed them and similarly situated employees that they would be regularized in due course and would be placed on par with permanent employees 19 and would be extended all the benefits applicable to permanent employees. They contended that while this being so, the respondents issued circulars as per their convenience and started conferring permanent status to the employees who had been employed under the respondents as temporary or ad hoc employees. The petitioners claim on 04.07.2004 some employees similarly situated like the petitioners, were given the permanent status and they were treated as permanent employees, which was followed by another order dated 21.09.2007. The petitioners claim that they were singled out and they were not regularized in service. The petitioners claim that they approached the respondents requesting them to regularize their services and treat them on par with the persons who were regularized. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 along with 15 others filed W.P.Nos.85580-596/2012. The other petitioners in the present petition could not join the petitioners in W.P.Nos.85580-596/2012 due to financial stringency. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein and other 20 15 employees succeeded in the said writ petition and this Court directed that, "If an action is initiated for regularisation, then it has to be completed in consonance of the provisions of the Constitution. Hence, the fact of regularisation made to some persons who are similarly situated like petitioners and not extending the same to the petitioners is ultravires to the provisions of Constitution."
It is stated that the petitioners herein stood on the same footing as the petitioners in W.P.Nos.85580-596/2012. Notwithstanding the direction issued in W.P.Nos.85580- 596/2012, the respondents issued an endorsement dated 04.07.2015 to all the petitioners in W.P.Nos.85580- 596/2012, refusing to regularise their services.
6. Some of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.85580- 596/2012 challenged the order dated 04.07.2015 and also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioners. The Writ Petition was disposed off directing them to avail other legal remedies. A writ appeal was filed and the same is pending 21 consideration before this Court. They claimed that one of the petitioners in W.P.No.200763/2016 filed Contempt Petition No.200109/2015. The contempt petition was dropped reserving liberty to approach the Court. This was followed by a proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal which passed an award dated 21.08.2013 by which the termination was set-aside and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioners on par with the permanent Gangman with 50% backwages from the year 2007 and continuity of service after fixation of salary. The said award of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.9211/2014 and 17206/2014. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents settled the dispute amicably and submitted that they were prepared to re-instate the petitioners therein as permanent employees, if the petitioners gave up their claim for backwages. Based on the said settlement, the employees similarly situate like the petitioners were regularized. The petitioners in the present writ petitions submit that the endorsement dated 04.07.2015 operates against all the 22 petitioners. When the petitioners in W.P.Nos.85580- 596/2012 who stood on the same footing as the petitioners herein and the writ petition filed in W.P.No.200763/2016 was allowed by this Court, the petitioners herein claim that the benefit of the said order should be extended to them also. The petitioners claim, instead of giving them the benefit, respondents issued an endorsement dated 04.07.2015, by which the respondents decided not to regularize the services. The petitioners further claimed that an orderlie was appointed on temporary basis at the home office of the Managing Director and he was regularized and declared a permanent employee. Therefore, the petitioners sought for regularization of their services.
7. The respondents contested the writ petitions by filing a statement of objections in W.P.No.207310/2017 which was adopted in the other petitions and contended that the endorsement dated 04.07.2015, which is challenged by the petitioners herein was also the subject 23 matter of challenge in W.P.200763/2016 and that this Court in terms of the order dated 13.03.2018 had dismissed the writ petition. It is also contended that the petitioners were discontinued/terminated w.e.f 01.02.2008 and that the said termination is not challenged by the petitioners at any point of time and therefore, the same has become final. The respondents also contend that the writ petition is filed after lapse of nearly nine years and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The respondents contend that the petitioners were all workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the petitioners without approaching the competent Industrial Tribunal, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. They relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [(1983) 2 SCC 433], which was subsequently followed in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR WEST BENGAL VS. DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND 24 OTHERS [(1985) 1 SCC 260]. They contended that the petitioners cannot bypass the alternate and adequate and statutory remedy available to them under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also contended that this Court should not adjudicate the claim on merits since they are disputed questions of fact. It is contended that the petitioners were engaged as Temporary Meter Readers on consolidated salary and that their engagement was purely ad hoc and temporary. Therefore, they cannot claim any right for continuation of the services or for regularization. The respondents reiterated clause 6 of the appointment order, which read as follows;
"The services of these men will be utilized for the specific works stated above. They should only assist the permanent men in the division and shall not be allowed to work independently. If they do un- authorised works, it shall be at their own risk and responsibility and they shall not be eligible for any compensation or cost of medical treatment etc., in case of injury etc.,"
8. It is claimed that the petitioners have consciously accepted the temporary appointment and therefore, 25 cannot seek permanency of their tenure. It is also contended that the Constitution Bench in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS [(2006) 4 SCC 1] held that the Court should not issue mandamous for regularization or absorption in case of temporary workmen. A judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.4050/2009 and 1476-77/2010 is relied upon to contend that;
"7. It is clear from the facts of the present case and prayer made in the Writ Petitions as referred to above that the Court cannot give directions to the Respondents Management to regularize the services of the petitioners - appellants herein and it can only direct the Respondents Management to consider the representations given by the appellants for regularization and other reliefs for in the representation."
They also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. VARTAK 26 LABOUR UNION [(2011) 4 SCC 200] wherein it is held that;
"We are of the opinion that the Union's claim for regularization of its members merely because they have been working for BRO for a considerable period of time cannot be granted in light of several decisions of this Court, wherein it has been consistently held that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules."
9. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners who have sought for regularization of their services, cannot maintain the present writ petition. The respondents contend that the claim of the petitioners that they fulfilled all requirements for appointment as Meter Readers or Ledger Maintenance Workers was vague. The respondents denied that the petitioners were subjected to process of selection and that the selection process was followed by applying the roster reservation. They also 27 contended that similarly situated persons were not regularized as alleged and was vague. They contended that the case of Gangmen, who were regularized as probationary Mazdoors, cannot be equated to the petitioners as there was a scheme for appointment of Gangmen and later conversion as probationary Mazdoors. The respondents contended that the petitioners and Gangmen stood on a different footing. They claimed that the Assistant Engineers who are appointed on temporary basis were subject to a selection process and complied all terms and conditions for their regularization and that the roster reservation was followed in the said appointments and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim equation with the Assistant Engineers whose services were regularized.
10. In so far as regularisation of an orderlie at the home office of Managing Director, it is stated that the regularisation of his services was in accordance with the Board Order dated 04.11.1999.
28
11. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the following questions arise for consideration:
1) Whether the petitioners are workmen who must have challenged the refusal to accept their services before the Competent Industrial Tribunal and seek regularization of their services?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled tobe regularized as is done in the case of Gangmen, Assistant Engineers, Meter Readers etc?
3) Whether the petitioners have explained the delay in approaching this Court?
12. In so far as question No.1 is concerned, some of the Meter Readers employed by the respondents on temporary basis and who were denied work, approached this Court in W.P.Nos.85580-596/2012 for continuation of their services and for regularization of their services. This Court in terms of the Order dated 19.01.2015 held as follows;
"4. The case of the petitioners that similarly situated persons were absorbed in a phased manner and same has not been extended to the petitioners notwithstanding the provisions of Article 29 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. If an action is initiated for regularization then it has to be completed in consonance of the provisions of the Constitution. Hence, the fact of regularization made to some persons who are similarly situated like petitioners and not extending the same to the petitioners is ultravires to the provisions of Constitution."
13. Later, a few Meter Readers again approached this Court in W.P.Nos.200763/2016 and W.P.Nos.200848- 857/2016. The petitioners therein contended that the respondents have issued an endorsement dated 04.07.2015 refusing to regularize the Meter Readers who had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.85580-596/2012. Hence, this Court felt it appropriate that the petitioners therein invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
14. In W.P.No.7425/2007 a resolution passed by the respondent regularizing the services of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) on contract basis, was upheld by this Court following which another batch of writ petition was filed in 30 W.P.Nos.5975-6012/2012, which too was allowed in part and the State Government was directed to consider the report of the respondents recommending the regularization of the persons who were petitioners in W.P.Nos.5975- 6012/2012.
15. This Court in W.P.Nos.101460-101467/2013 considered the case of Junior Assistant - Ledger Maintenance Workers whose services were terminated on 31.01.2008 and who had raised an Industrial Dispute in reference No.12/2012. The Labour Court had rejected their reference. This Court in terms of the order dated 15.12.2015 held the termination of the petitioners as illegal and directed to reinstate the petitioners into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits, but without back wages.
16. It is seen from statement of objections filed by the respondents that though the petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a month, but yet were continued for more than ten years. There is no order 31 terminating the services of the petitioners and as such, the petitioners could not approach the Industrial Court for reliefs. The reliance of the respondent in W.P.No.51219/2017 is inconsequential as in the said writ petition, the petitioners were employed under a private contractor and there was no relationship of employer and employee. This judgment cannot be pressed into service to deny the claim of the petitioners. Even otherwise, it is seen that notwithstanding the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra), the respondent continued to regulaize services of an orderlie at the Home Office of the Managing Director, which is evident from the documents produced by the petitioners as well as Annexure-R12.
17. The contention of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the petitioners were "Workmen" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is though acceptable, yet in view of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 an individual workmen does not have a 32 right to pursue his remedy under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The only remedy for an individual Industrial Dispute is under Section 2A when a workmen is discharged, dismissed or retrenched or terminated. In the present case, there is no order discharging, dismissing or retrenching or terminating the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have no remedy either under Section 2(k) or under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, they cannot be rendered remediless if a statue does not provide a remedy against infringement of their right. It was in the very same context that this Court in W.P.Nos.101460-101467/2013 had granted relief to the contract employees, who were employed as Gangmen by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit which was granted to similarly situated persons. Under the said circumstance, the question No.1 is held in the affirmative and it is directed that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized, however, with continuity of services and all consequential benefits excluding backwages.
33
18. In so far as 2nd question is concerned, though the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umadevi's case had consciously held that appointments made in violation of the regular recruitment process is illegal but yet had saved the appointments of those contractual employees who had put in ten years of service by that date. Though the Hon'ble Apex Court had cautioned the State and its Agencies not to engage workers on contract basis, yet the respondents have continued to appoint people on contract basis and have continued their services indefinitely. It is therefore necessary to consider the law that has evolved by the Apex Court in the aftermath of Umadevi's case.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others vs. Kamal Prasad and others [(2014) 7 SCC 223] held that "in the cases in hand both the Government of State of Bihar and Jharkhand have continued the service of all the respondents employees for 10 or more years even after they failed to get appointment to the posts on regular basis." 34
"The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants that the regularisation of the respondent employees in their service would deprive the other eligible persons from employment is wholly untenable in law as the same would constitute not only discrimination but also deprivation of their livelihood, which is not legally permissible in law. The question is whether the appellants can terminate the services of the present employees who have served for more than 10 to 30 years, thereby rendering injustice to the eligible people. Therefore, in any event, it is doubtful whether the employer, more particularly the State can raise such a plea to deny employment to the employees and whether the law can be interpreted in a manner so as to give all benefits to the wrongdoers. The appointments were given to a large number of engineers by the State Government of Bihar consciously and there is no allegation of unfairness in their appointment which can be said to be tainted or as a result of any nepotism. The error of the State Government of either Bihar or Jharkhand would not justify to throw away the respondent employees by making them unemployed who have been well settled in their life since the same would amount to a clear case of 35 discrimination and deprivation of their livelihood. Further, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that there is duty cast upon the State Government of Jharkhand to consider the claim of the respondent employees as one- time regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees in their posts."
The aforesaid Judgment was again considered in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others [(2018) 8 SCC 238] and again in Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2018) 13 SCC 432] where it was held that the extracting work from employees and not regularizing them would be a form of exploitation at the hands of the State. The Apex Court at para No.7 held as follows;
"7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1:2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of 36 Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid.
8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed 37 employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. In Chander Mohan Negi and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others [(2020) 5 SCC 732] it is held as follows;
"13. It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government, there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/ absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed Teachers under the various schemes, benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code, 1985. The judgments relied on by learned counsel Shri Prashant Bhushan also would not render any 38 assistance to the case of the appellants herein for the reason that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need of framing such policies to meet the immediate requirement to fill up single teacher schools which were vacant for a very long time, having regard to topographical conditions, which is not even controverted by way of any rejoinder before the High Court. In such view of the matter, taking the totality of peculiar circumstances of these cases, we are of the view that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are working for the meager salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make backdoor entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission. Further it is also to be noted that though such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned such policies and appointments up to 2012 and 2013. The writ petition i.e. CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petition, there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the averments of the State as 39 stated in the reply-affidavit. Having regard to the nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to material placed before this Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] by the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] of the High Court." (Emphasis supplied)
21. Thus the aforesaid judgment which are rendered subsequent to the case of Umadevi, indicate a gradual shift towards regularization of employees engaged for long years. Failing this, the Apex Court held, would be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
22. In so far as the question whether the petitioners are entitled to be regularized, it is relevant to note that the petitioners are all over aged and cannot aspire to get into any service. If the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have compelled the petitioners to work beyond the period of contract, it has exploited the bargaining power of an 40 employer and the same needs to be castigated in serious terms. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others [(2019) 4 SCC 290] held as follows;
"17. Following the logic of the two decisions of this Court which have been noted earlier, we are of the view that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] cannot be used as a charter to discriminate between similarly placed employees, once the Union of India in fact takes a decision to regularise the individuals borne on a seniority list. This decision, as we have already noted earlier, was taken in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal and of the High Court both of which were rendered before the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753]
23. In this background, the issue which now arises before this Court is in regard to the effective direction which would govern the present case. The High Court has directed the Union of India to absorb the casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question, then in any other establishment. The latter part of the direction, as we have already noted, cannot be sustained. 41 Equally, in our opinion, the authorities cannot be heard to throw their hands in despair by submitting that there are no vacancies and that it had already regularised such of the persons in the seniority list, who reported for work.The Tribunal has entered a finding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the record. Accordingly, we are of the view that having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding to regularise the workmen concerned.
24. Accordingly, we direct that the case for regularisation shall be considered strictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the directions which were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court and such of the persons, who are available for regularisation on the basis of vacancies existing at present, shall be considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal has denied back wages but has ordered a notional fixation of pay and allowances. While affirming that direction, we also direct that persons who have crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to the computation and payment of their retiral dues on that basis. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. If it becomes 42 necessary to grant age relaxation to the workmen concerned, the appellants shall do so."
(Emphasis supplied) Hence, the obvious answer to question No.2 is that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized with continuity of service and all consequential benefits excluding back wages.
23. In so far as 3rd question is concerned, no doubt the petitioners are slack in approaching this Court. However, what needs to be understood is that they were all employees on contract and were paid a pittance as wages. If the petitioners have claimed that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had represented to them that the case of the petitioners would be considered just like the cases of Gangmen, Assistant Engineers, Meter Readers etc., it cannot be disbelieved. The respondent No.3 as a model employer must have considered the cases of all those employees who were entitled to be regularized and must have taken steps for their regularization. The delay in 43 approaching this Court is though fatal but equity could be worked out between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 by denying the back wages from the date of their last working till the date of filing the writ petition.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, these writ petitions are allowed in part.
The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to regularize the petitioners from the date when they completed 10 years of service and provide them with continuity of service and consequential benefits. The petitioners shall be entitled to count their past services for the purpose of fixation of pay and pension. However, the petitioners shall not be entitled to back wages from the day they last worked till the date of filing these writ petitions. The petitioners shall undergo any training as may be prescribed by the respondent No.3.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM