Karnataka High Court
R Manjunath vs Director (Canteens) on 23 September, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF' SEPTEMBER.
PRESENT V H 3 4
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs11OEy}G_sAE:iA§f;1}r"~:: _ "
AND: ._
THE HON'BLE MRs.JUsTI__GE 3
WRIT PE'1'I'I'ION NO. 1é%és'2';§'m_ggF 2O013 {sicA*:'1
BEE] WEEN:
1. R. MANJUNATH, ._
AGED 29 YEARS, V, A ., '-
S/O G. RENUKA ' "
BANGALORE cm' GAMEEN
BANGALORE 5-50% .. ' -
2. R. JAYAPEAKASH, »-- V .
AGED 27 YEARS,
,,€:_?f»/O;~.G. RENIJKA ARADHYA
_ -_OcGN: CANTEI3;N"COUNTER CLERK,
, v. 3 EANOGAEORE CRY RMS CANTEEN
560 023.
" A "BOTH RESIDING AT
'"N0..--__'7'i -,. 2ND CROSS, ST" MAIN,
3*'-3.3 PHASE, J P NAGAR,
V' A ILBANGALORE 560 078.
. . PETITIONERS
'j {BY SR} RA. KULKARNI, Am/1,)
AND
1. DIRECTOR ICANTEENS),
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING;--- '
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
GOVERNMENT OFINDIA, I
3RD FLOOR, B WING, LOK NAYAK .BHAVAN, "
NEW DELHI 110 003. " .. -I' --. '
2. CHIEF POST MASTER CENERAL, <._
KARNATAKA CIRCLE, ' _ . x_
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE5 560 001- _ I
3. SENIOR SUPERINTENIQENTIIRMS;
RMS BANGALORE SORTING I:ajIvIS«IO»N,'~Y _
BANGALORE-- 560 026. ' A " "
4. BANGALORECITY RMS '
BYITS SECRETARY,' _ "
BANOALOR1i;44CITY.VRMS--..:)'E1éART;\IIENTAL CANTEEN.
BANCALOREi__S;6o 023.,' I
. ...RESPONDENTS
{BY SMT; xS'rIWE'1fI91AfACGSC., SR1 N. AMARESH,
ACGSC., SMTIQ LY RREMAYATHI, CGSC.,)
WP IS'--~RI_L_E.E UNDER ARTICLES 226 as: 227 OF
~ 'THE'O"CON'STITUT1ON OF INDIA PRAYINC TO QUASH VIBE
ANX,A p'1*..I:2.o;'2,2o03 BY THE HONBLE CAT, BANGALORE
"--.'I'I~{IS7."WP:= COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY.
SABRAR_1T MADE THE FOLLOWING»
ORDER
This petition is filed by the applicants in Original Application ' 545/2002 being aggrieved by th.e'*"order nu wherein the Central Administrative Bench {hereinafter called v.for-._l:bre&fitYl" has it C declined to grant the prayerthe dldapplaicants 'Wmw petitioners herein to qiiash to A5 and to set aside theidecisiongolftliediespondents and direct the responcients. of the applicants -- petitioner __ filed for absorption/ regularisation as Vc5,m.§e;j'i'§taff of respondent No.4 - Bangalore City. Departmental Canteen and to vdirect _vtiie.j4respondents to extent all consequential of absorption and extend the revised V C payduscales under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 1997. 3~ It is the case of the app1icants~«petitioners that they were working as Assistants in the _ganteen of respondent No.4 which is a type 'C' canteen 'E ' and can have staff of 10 members, i.e. one i\/Ianager,__ one Counter Clerk / Salesman / Cash Clerl{;w.0:'j'«o:n-e coupon / reserve clerk, one halwai, one tea/coffee -0 ' three bearers. one wash boy/ Sweeper. However, there were only three staff on the establishment of res0p0Vn'd_ent f\a'o_.4 .:Agcvan~t:ee1'1 and 0' staff strength of the as on 1991 had been frozen as ban on creation and on filling up of Vacancies' made application for their :abso'rp'tiion'::ff4i11to'~V.Cthe0"fsertrices of the fourth respond'Cn--t4_ V were called upon to produce .VaVppo_in'tment order and thereafter, 'JV"'venciorse.ment was""'i's'sued stating that they were not '~ab.sorption. Being aggrieved by the same. Aptp.Elcations'..--vh}ere filed before the CAT for the above said "religefs: -Tfhe CAT after hearing the counsel appearing for 0 by order dt. 20.2.2003 held that though the VA ..a.pp1icants employed for working in the establishment of V' the fourth respondent, they have not produced any
-E appointment order and in the absence of "any appointment, the contention that they were entitl_ed.i_l'to absorption in the service and fixation of * scale, cannot be accepted. The.;applica.titsi"criaini in they were working on the staff 1.10.1991 and hence are be i' V absorbed/regularisedv are available for doing so,H'ha_s' not?'beendstipbstantiated and accordingly dismissed being aggrieved by the .-preferred this Writ Petition;
V3: iVv'ep_" .have_ heard the learned counsel ' V' '-appearing for the petitioners. learned counsel appearing for the 1""'.__VV'pctiti0ne_rS submitted that app1iCants--petitioners herein entitled to absorption and rejection of the VA .,applications by the CAT. is erroneous. Elk, 4-
5. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and scrutinised the material on record.
6. It is clear from the scrutiny it on record that the petitioners it the employment of the V'lZ_)'e.partmental of respondent No.4 and that___l:V"th:_ey._» werewentiftled to absorption/regularisation?_yand{_'en4tit3;ed'l ._to revised pay scales. The contention"'of--.the" is that they were ntoltllllappointefd' to~,:the s_'ai'd'l posts and Wherefore, question. of absorptiovn_]'reg--ularisation does not arise. Even though the .applicants -« petitioners herein contend ,.,.{/mL...C'tl":.e3r were Happointed to a regular post and are vat3:_5j.;orption/regularisation in revised pay scaie, t_he'_3a..ppointment order is not produced. In the R""'-._VV"absence_.iof any merit to show that petitioners are 5% appointed to a regular post, question of absorption/ ...r:égu1arisation does not arise and wherefore, the order V passed by the CAT dismissing the applications seeking \,...x for absorption/regularisation and revised pay scale, is justified and does not suffer from any error, iI1egali:ty a.g to call for interference in exercise of the writjurisicliiijtioii----- ~ of this Court. Accordingly Writ Petitiori ,e ; _ 3udqe BNS