Karnataka High Court
S B Gowdar @ Eshwargouda Andanigowdar vs Secretary, Pca & Rd Bank Ltd on 6 March, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6Th DAY OF MARCH, 201
2,
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
W.P.NOs.62691-692 OF 2009 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
S,B,Gowdar a Eshwargouda
Andanigowdar,
Sb Basavanagowda Andanigowdar,
Age: 50 years,
0cc: Clerk,
R/o Bankapur Road,
C.R.Patil chawl,
Mundgodu, Dist: Uttar Kannada.
2. Ramu Yellappa Jeevakkanavar,
Age: 38 years,
0cc: Sepoy(peon),
R/o Kathur Village,
Tq: Mundgodu,
Dist: Uttar Kannada.
Petitioners
(By Shri Mahesh Wodeyar, Adv.)
AND:
Secretary,
PCA & RD Bank Ltd.,
At Mundgodu,
Dist: Uttar Kannada.
2. The Member Secretary,
Common Cadre Committee,
For PCA & RD Bank Employees,
Alur Venkatrao Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore5600 18.
Respondents
(By Shri M,M.Hiremath, Adv. for Ri
& R2)
These Writ Petitions are filed und
er Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of Ind
ia Praying to quash the
impugned order dated 3.4.2009
passed by the respondent
No.2 vide Annexure-A direction
to the respondents to
regularize the services of the pet
itioners.
These Writ Petitions coming on for
Preliminary Hearing
in "B" Group this day, the Court ma
de the following:
ORDER
Petitioners in these petitio ns have sought for quashing the order dated 3rd April 2009 passed by second respondent vide An nexure A, in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
Further, petitioners have sought for a mandamus, dir ecting the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners.
2. It is the case of the petitioner s that they are working in the respondent No.1 Bank since 1994 and 1997 as clerk cum typist and sepoy/peon respectively on daily wage basis. They have worked more tha n ten years continuously and without any break. Till today, they are working on daily wage basis. When suc h being the position, the second respondent directed the first respondent to terminate the services of the petitioners.
The said order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.43220-43222/2002 and an inte rim order of stay was granted until further orders, reserving liberty to the respondents to seek for modifi cation of the interim order, vide Annexure E to the writ petitions.
Thereafter, the said matter had com e up for final hearing on 29th July 2008 and this Cou rt, disposed of the matter with a direction to the sec ond respondent to consider the case of the petitioners, for regularization in the light of the judgment of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Basavarajappa Vs. The Common Cadre Committee for the employees of the Primary Co-op.
Agricultural and Rural Development Ban ks, in the State of Karnataka and others in Writ Petitio n No.28280/2002, disposed of on 251h September 2006.
Subsequently, this 4 Court quashed Annexure D therei n only in so far as it related to petitioners therein and directed the second respondent to consider the case of petitioners therein for regularization, in the light of the said judgment and till the second respondent con siders the case of the petitioners, the petitioners shall not be discontinued or disturbed from the services of the first respondent Bank and the second respondent shall pas s appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
After disposal of the writ petitions, the petitioners hav e submitted a detailed representation. instead of con sidering their request for regularization of their servic es in the light of the direction issued by this Court , following the Apex Court decision, cited supra, vide Annexure F, as referred above, they have issued an end orsement dated 3rd April 2009 vide Annexure A, uni laterally. In the said endorsement, instead of consid ering the request of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in the light 4 5 of the direction issued by this Court, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court, vide Annexure F, referred above, they have taken a decision not to regularize the services of the petitioners stating that the petitioners are appointed on daily wage basis and accordingly, relieved the petitioners on 15th April 2009 vide Annexure G. The respondents further observed that there is no scope for regularization of the services of the petitioners nor any document as such has been produced before the authority to consider their requ est. Therefore, they declined to consider the case of petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent dated 3n1 April 2009 vide Annexure A, issued without affording opportunity to petitioner and in view of the non compliance of the directions issued by this Cou rt dated 20th July 2009, in writ petition No.43220/2002 at Annexure F, the petitioners have presented these two petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.
/ .--------
63. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petitions and perused the impugned endorsement issued by the respondents and the direction issued by this Court vide Ann exure F referred above. This Court has specifically directed the respondents to consider their case, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Secretary of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1. If the petitioners are working in the existing posts since ten years, the services of suc h persons may be considered for regularization in the light of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in these petitions have rendered their services in the exis ting posts for more than ten years. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor appreciated except stating that as on the date, the Common Cadre Aut hority came into force, these petitioners were appoin ted on daily wage basis and therefore, they are not entitled for 7 regularization of their services and issued the impugned endorsement. Such reasoning given by the res pondent cannot be sustained. The said endorsement has bee n issued, unilaterally, without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. If sufficient opportunity had been afford ed to these petitioners, then, they would have made out a case with reference to the Apex Court decision and the order passed by this Court that they have been wo rking in the respondent department since ten years in the existing posts in the cadre of clerk cum typist, sepoy/peon, respectively. Therefore, in view of non aff ording of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and for non compliance of the principles of natural justice, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In short, it is not a speaking ord er.
4. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as referred above, the writ petitions filed by petitioners are allowed in part.
8The impugned endorsement dat ed 3rd April 2009 issued by second respondent vid e Annexure A is hereby set aside;
The matter stands remitted bac k to the second respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision, in accord ance with law, having regard to the observations ma de by this Court during the course of its order and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
sal 3UDG BMV*