Karnataka High Court
By Its Principal Secretary Department ... vs Sri Nagesh Ankannagaru 63 Years S/O ... on 20 March, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
WP No. 100819 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 100819 OF 2023 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD 580001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GOVT. ADVOCATE.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AND:
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
MOHANKUMAR Location: High
B SHELAR Court of SRI NAGESH ANKANNAGARU,
Karnataka,
Dharwad
Date:
63 YEARS, S/O OBLESH,
2023.04.05
11:26:08 +0530 WORKING AS FULL TIME SWEEPER,
O/O SUPERIDENT OF POLICE
DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD-580001
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. P.RAJASHEKAR, SRI. R. NAVEEN KUMAR AND SRI.
N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATIONS NO.10978
AND 10983/2019 (ANNEXURE.C TO THE WRIT PETITION).
-2-
WP No. 100819 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This is another unfortunate case, where the State Government and its authorities are reluctant to pass orders of regularization in spite of several directions having been given by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of persons who are appointed as full time Sweepers in the police department.
2. It is not disputed that, at the hands of the petitioner-State and its authorities that, the respondent herein was appointed to a post of Sweeper with effect from 05.09.1980. The documents which fell to the scrutiny of the tribunal did not dispute the fact that, the respondent was extended with the increments regularly and in fact, the said aspects were not disputed at the hands of the petitioner herein. However, it was sought to be contended that, the respondent was aware of the fact -3- WP No. 100819 of 2023 that, he was appointed to a non-pensionary post, temporarily and that the salary would be paid out of contingency fund. All these aspects have been thoroughly considered by the tribunal and the tribunal noticed a catena of decisions rendered by the tribunal in respect of similarly placed persons, commencing from Application Nos.6616 to 6618/2001 and connected matters, wherein, the tribunal had passed an order on 27.02.2022, while noticing a decision of this Court and set aside the endorsement issued by the petitioner-authorities and directed them to regularize the services of all persons who were employed as Sweepers, enabling them to get pensionary benefits. Subsequently, it was noticed that, in various similar other matters, including Application Nos.542-547/2000, the tribunal passed an order dated 19.08.2002 setting aside the endorsements issued by the Government and that order of the tribunal was brought by the Government before this Court in W.P.Nos.25540, 25853-57, 26547 of 2003 and the same were dismissed on 02.06.2003. Thereafter, Special Leave Petitions were -4- WP No. 100819 of 2023 filed by the petitioners-State and the same came to be dismissed on 26.09.2003. It was also noticed that a faint attempt was made by the Government seeking review of the order before the Apex Court and the said attempt was also dismissed. Thereafter, the order passed by the Tribunal was implemented by the Government by order dated 30.08.2004, 01.09.2004, 05.11.2004, nil.01.2006 and all those applicants were regularized as full time Sweepers with the benefit of pension. In fact, in an order dated 06.03.2003, passed by the tribunal in Application Nos.877-878/2000, the tribunal had directed the State- Government and its Chief Secretary, that remedial action shall be taken in all the cases of such persons who are working as Sweepers.
3. The arguments put forth on behalf of the State was considered by the tribunal. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, reported in -5- WP No. 100819 of 2023 (2015) 1 SCC 347, particularly paragraph No.23(1), is extracted as follows:
"(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of 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 merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently."
4. Further, the arguments of the State that respondent herein has approached the Tribunal at a very belated stage was also considered having regard to the established principles of law which fell from the case of Aravind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and a decision of this court in the case of Nagappa K. and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 1986 KAR 3093, wherein it was held that, when a particular set of -6- WP No. 100819 of 2023 employees are given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Any act to the contrary would amount to discrimination and it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and persons similarly situated who did not approach the court earlier need not be denied the benefit and on the other hand, they too should be treated alike and given the benefit of the co-employees.
5. Having heard the learned Principal Government Advocate on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the petition papers, this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, when a stream of decisions and directions are given by the competent court directing the State and its authorities to ensure that benefit given to a set of employees is necessarily be given to all other similarly situated persons has been once again reiterated by the Tribunal and -7- WP No. 100819 of 2023 directions are issued to the State to regularize the service of the respondent herein as Sweeper in a pensionable post from the date of initial appointment to enable him to draw pensionary benefits. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Consequently, the wit petition is dismissed.
(Sd/-) JUDGE (Sd/-) JUDGE Svh/MBS.