Karnataka High Court
Sri Shashidhar K R vs The Govt. Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.7750 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHASHIDHAR K.R.
S/O SRI.RACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION CLERK
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DAVANGERE
AND RESIDING AT BHANUVALII(P)-577 516.
TALUK:HARIHAR,
DIST. DAVANAGERE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.S NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
(SERVICES-B)
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
CHITRADURGA- 577 501.
2
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
DAVANAGERE- 577 004.
4. THE ASST. ECXECUTIVE ENGINNER
MINOR IRRIGATION SUB-DIVISION
DAVANAGERE-577 004.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJYAKUMAR DESAI, AGA)
-------
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM
THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, PERTIANING TO
ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2018 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
APPLICATION NO.1115 OF 2009 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS
COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE
RECORDS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-
GROUP, THIS DAY, P.N DESAI J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short) dated 03.04.2018 in application no.1115/2019 with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any 3 other appropriate writ, or direction quashing the order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.1115 of 2009, issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or direction directing the respondents to grant the relief of regularisation of the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1994 with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits and with further direction to the respondents to pay the difference of salary etc., and grant such other relief.
2. The brief contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Literate Assistant in the office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub Division, Chitradurga. On 01.01.1984 on daily wage basis. When he was refused employment he raised Industrial Dispute. The Industrial Tribunal, Hubli passed an award on 06.11.1995 granting relief of reinstatement and with continuity of services and payment of full back-wages as per Minimum Wages Act. The same attained 4 finality and said order was challenged by the Government before this Court.
3. It is further contended that the Government issued an order on 23.08.2001 to regularise the services of petitioner with effect from 01.01.1994. But there were no vacancies in Minor Irrigation Department. Therefore a proposal was sent to Government to create a supernumerary post in the grade of Group-C by the Chief Engineer's letter dated 23.08.2001. Accordingly Government created supernumerary post in Group-C cadre (SDA) on 23.08.2001 for a period of one year. Subsequently, the said post was renamed as Group-C Literate Assistant by modifying the order on 14.03.2002. The petitioner gave a representation to regularise his services from 01.01.1994. But the second respondent directed Assistant Executive Engineer to give financial benefits from the date 08.05.2002 based on Government letter dated 23.08.2001. A clarification was also issued on 04.01.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that 5 he is entitled for difference of salary after regularisation of his service with effect from 01.01.1994. As same was refused, petitioner filed the application before Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the both sides rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri. V.S. Naik, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Vijaykumar Desai learned AGA for respondent -State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the authorities have not given any reason in the letter stating that the petitioner is not entitled for service benefits with effect from the date of order of regularisation of services. The said decision lacks application of mind and no reasons are assigned for denying the benefits.
6. Learned counsel argued that since the date of appointment, till the date of passing by the order of the Industrial Tribunal the period is held to be continuous one for all 6 practical purposes and the Government cannot deny the benefits. Once he is regularised he becomes a regular Government servant for all purposes and the Government has to extend same benefits to daily-wage employees.
7. The learned counsel argued that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the enforcement of statutory right flows from the award of Labour Court which was confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka in the writ petitions and writ appeals filed by the Government. Tribunal ought to have considered that it is not a case of legitimate expectation but it is the case of enforcement of statutory right.
8. Against this learned AGA argued that Tribunal has rightly appreciated the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the petition. The date of regularisation is as per Government letter dated 23.08.2001. The petitioner was given all service benefits, financial benefits as per order dated 08.05.2002 i.e., 7 from date of regularisation and not from any other date. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9. We have perused the material on record and also the order of the Tribunal.
10. It is evident that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on 01.01.1984 and his services were discontinued from 09.06.1995. He was out of service from 1985 to 1998. Only on 20.09.1998 he was taken as daily wage employee based on Industrial Tribunal order. He was paid financial benefits as ordered by the Labour Court. there was no sanctioned post hence a supernumerary post was created for one year and he was regularised. Petitioner was not at all absorbed till a supernumerary post was created. Further the Tribunal has held that the lower Court cannot order for regularisation. The petitioner got 24 years of service till the time of his retirement. he was eligible for pensionary benefits. the Govt. created a supernumerary post only to accommodate the petitioner into 8 Government service. Therefore, his regularisation with retrospective effect cannot be considered.
11. The Tribunal rejected the application. However observed that he is entitled for counting his services being regularised after 30 years of age, he can submit an appropriate representation to the authorities concerned to consider additional qualifying service for the purpose of pension in terms of relevant provision/s in Karnataka Civil Services Rules.
12. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's service was regularised on 23.08.2001 only after creation of a supernumerary post for one year. It is also averred that the second respondent directed Assistant Executive Engineer, Davanagere by order dated 15.12.2007 at Annexures-A & A5 to give financial benefit from the date of order of Superintending Engineer dated 08.05.2002, based on the Government order and letter dated 23.08.2001. In this regard an endorsement was also given on 24.06.2008.
9
13. The petitioner kept quiet all these years and filed an application before the Tribunal. Tribunal rejected his application on 03.04.2018. The petitioner accepted the same and kept quiet. This petition is filed, nearly more than one and half a year after the order passed by the Tribunal. The delay on the part of the petitioner to file this petition is not explained. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 14.03.2002 or the order of the Superintending Engineer dated 08.05.2002 and also the endorsement given by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Davanagere dated 24.06.2008. There is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. There is also delay in challenging the earlier endorsement. The inordinate delay and laches in preferring the writ petition has not been explained and in that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and laches also.
10
14. We do not find any error or illegality in the speaking order of the Tribunal, which would need interference by this Court. The petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BVK