Karnataka High Court
Sri Bhagwan Das vs The Deputy Commissioner on 21 June, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NOS.42637-42652/2017 (S-Res)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BHAGWAN DAS
S/O SESAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O VISHALAKSHI COMPOUND,
PEDAMALA HOUSE,
PEDAMLE POST,
MANGALORE-575 029
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
2. SRI RAMESH
S/O LATE BRAHMDAS,
AGEDA BOUT 44 YEARS
C/O SHANKAR, DRIVER KANA,
SURATHKAL-575 014
3. SRI K N PRAVEEN
S/O LATE NARAYANA BANJERA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
C/O B GANGADHARA,
NEAR VINAYAKA TALKIES,
BANTWAL-574 219
4. SRI VAMAN
S/O LATE SHIPOJARI
AGED ABOUT 52 YAERS,
SONABA SADANA,
MAILA GUDDE, VIDYANAGAR,
PANJIMOGAS POST,
MANGALORE-575 013
5. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O THOMA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NADYAPADAVU POST & VILLAGE
-2-
MANGALORE TALUK
DIST:MANGALORE
6. SRI HARIYAPPA
S/O LATE ALITHAPPA GAIGA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
SANJAYANAGAR,
SHAKTHINAGAR,
MANGALORE-575 016
7. SRI K SUDHEER
S/O K CHANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
M.K.B.SHETTY COMPOUND,
ALAPE KAMBADI,
ALAPE, MANGALORE-575 008
8. SRI BABU BANJER
S/O LATE ANGARA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
BOLOOR KALLISHWAR,
COMPOUND, PARAPPU,
MANGALORE-575 003
9. SRI SHAJIL KUMAR
S/O RAGHAVAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
M.S.B.PRASAD,
NEAR MUTHAPPAGUDI,
SHANKTHINAGAR,
MANGALORE-575 016
10. SRI JAGDEESH
S/O BOOBA MESTRY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
GANGANIVASU,
KOTUKANI ROAD,
BEJAI POST,
MANGALORE-575 004
11. SRI J MOHAN DAS
S/O J VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
DR VISHWANATH SUVARNA
COMPOUND
JEPPU, MAHAKAL IPODAPU,
MANGALORE-575 002
-3-
12. SRI K GOVIND
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
KAVOORU MILLAKDU, 4TH MAIN,
KAVOOR POST,
MANGALORE-575 015
13. SRI PURUSHOTHAM KOTYAM
S/O DOOMPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
DEREBAILU COPOUND,
LOWER KONCHADY,
MANGALORE-575 008
14. SRI PRAVEEN
S/O LATE SEENA KUKYAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SEENA NILAYA
DEREBAIL,KONCHADY
MANGALORE-575 008
15. SRI SANTOSH
S/O SUBBA SALYAM
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BOOKAPATNA, BANGARE,
MANGALORE-575 003
16. SRI PRAVEEN SHETTY
S/O MARAPPA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
THANTHI COMPOUND,
BALEBAIL, KAPILAD, BEJAI,
MANGALORE-575 004
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SIDHARTH BABURAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE-575 001
MANGALORE TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
2. THE COMMISSIONER
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
-4-
MANGALORE-575 003
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B J ESHWARAPPA, AGA. FOR R1
SRI K N NITISH, ADV. FOR
SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADV. FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, TO R-1, TO REGULARISE
AND ABSORB THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS,
RETROSPECTIVELY, ACCORDANCE WITH ORDER DATED
28.7.2016 AT ANNEX-K AND TO GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS THEREFROM AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to regularize and absorb the services of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 28.07.2016 at Annexure 'K' to the petition. It is in that direction the petitioners are seeking consideration of the representation dated 24.01.2017.
2. The petitioners claim that they have been working continuously as Valve Man and Pump Operators for the last 28 years as daily wage employees -5- against the sanction posts. In that regard the petitioners contend that as per the Order dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure 'K'), an Order has been passed to consider for regularization/absorption subject to the satisfaction and compliance of the conditions indicated therein. According to the petitioners they satisfy the said conditions and therefore, they are entitled to regularization. Pursuant to the representations said to have been made by the petitioners, the respondent No.1 through the communication dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure 'G') has sought certain clarification. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the said clarification and lapse of sufficient time, no decision whatsoever has been taken and as such the petitioners have been denied the benefit of such consideration by the respondents.
3. Having taken note of the same, at the outset a decision is required to be taken by respondent No.1 with regard to the claim as put forth by the petitioners subject to the petitioners satisfying the requirements as -6- contemplated in the Order referred to above and also the position of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in that circumstance when the respondent No.1 has taken note of the representation submitted by the petitioners and has sought for clarification from respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is obliged to provide such clarification to respondent No.1 so that respondent No.1 can take a decision in the matter. To enable the same to be completed in a time bound manner, the petitioners shall now file one more copy of the representation and all supporting documents with the respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 on receipt of the same shall furnish all details relating to the claim being made by the petitioners to respondent No.1 within six weeks from the date on which such representation is filed.
The respondent No.1 shall thereupon take note of the details received from respondent No.1 and take a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioners and indicate the result of such consideration made by -7- respondent No.1 within three months from the date on which the details are received from respondent No.2.
In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS/bms