Karnataka High Court
Smt.U.G.Nirmala vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.8331 OF 2021 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.17251 OF 2021 (S-REG)
IN W.P. NO.8331 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1. SMT.U.G.NIRMALA
W/O. JAGADEESHA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED LITERATE ASSISTANT (SDA),
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
R/AT NO. 94, 2ND MAIN, 16TH CROSS,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
MYSORE 570024
2. SMT. THEJENDRAMMA
D/O. LATE. THAPASACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RETIRED LITERATE ASSISTANT (SDA),
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
R/AT NO. 2706, 3RD CROSS,
GANDHI NAGAR,
MANDYA 571401
3. SMT. H N KANTHAMANI
W/O. SHESHADRI,
WORKING AS LITERATE ASSISTANT (SDA),
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
R/AT NO. 1247, 4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
2
VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
MYSORE 570023 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA P.D, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
2. THE MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE 570024.
DIST MYSORE,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAIAH D.C, HCGP FOR R1)
SRI. GEETHADEVI.M.PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER MADE DTD 11.09.2020
ANNEXURE-V PASSED BY THE R1, INSOFAR AS IT
PERTAINS TO DENYING THE REGULARIZATION OF THE
SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS WITH EFFECTIVE FROM
THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF TEN YEARS OF SERVICE AS
DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES, BEING ARBITRARY,
ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.,
IN W.P. NO.17251 OF 2021
BETWEEN
SRI R JAGADEESH
S/O B RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETIRED LITERATE ASSISTANT (FDA)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
3
R/AT NO.123, 8TH CROSS
VIDYANAGAR, OPP TERESAIN COLLEGE
MYSORE 570 024 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA P.D, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
2. THE MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE 570024.
DIST MYSORE,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAIAH D.C, HCGP FOR R1)
SRI. GEETHADEVI.M.PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER MADE IN VIDE GOVERNMENT
ORDER DTD 11.09.2020, ANNEXURE-V PASSED BY THE
R1, INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO DENYING THE
REGULATIONS OF THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER WITH
EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF TEN
YEARS OF SERVICE AS DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEE, BEING
ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
COMMON ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Since common issues arise for consideration in both these petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.
Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent No.1.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance raised by the petitioners herein who are employees of the respondent-Mysuru City Corporation, in the matter of regularization of their services, have been considered and relief has been given to many such employees by this Court in W.P.No.50876/2019 and connected matters.
3. However, learned Counsel further submits that in W.P.No.8331/2021 the representations given by the petitioners seeking regularization of their services after completion of ten years, in terms of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others 5 Vs. Uma Devi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 in paragraph-53, though granted, however, the benefit was directed to be given from 01.08.2006, in contravention to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.50876/2019.
4. Learned Counsel submits that having considered the contentions raised at the hands of the respondent-Corporation, including the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.45/2013 and connected matters dated 13.11.2013, this Court directed the respondents to consider regularization of the services of those writ petitioners from the date on which the petitioners completed ten years of service, in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph-53 of Uma Devi's case.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Mysuru City Corporation submits that the impugned Government Order dated 11.09.2020 was issued regularizing the services of the petitioners. 6 However, in terms of the directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.45/2013, their services were directed to be regularized from 01.08.2006, and therefore, no fault can be found in the action of the respondent-authorities.
6. What is to be noticed is that this Court, in its decision in W.P.No.50876/2019 and connected matters, which was rendered on 21.10.2020 had also taken note of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.45/2013 dated 13.11.2013. Nevertheless, in terms of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-53 in Uma Devi's case, this Court directed the respondent- authorities to consider regularization of service of those petitioners from the date on which the petitioner's completed 10 years of service. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the decision of this Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.629/2021 dated 7 13.07.2021, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the State Government, the Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru and the Directorate of Municipal Administration. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that consequent to the directions given by this Court, the services of the petitioners in those writ petitions have been regularized from the date of completion of ten years and therefore, the same benefit is required to be given to the petitioners herein.
7. Therefore, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The writ petitions are allowed.
2. The impugned Government Order dated 11.09.2020 is quashed partially and the respondent-State Government is hereby directed that the services of the petitioners herein shall be regularized from the date of completion of ten years of service, as was 8 done in the case of the writ petitioners in W.P.No.50876/2019 and connected matters.
3. Consequently, the Official Memorandum dated 22.10.2020 at Annexure 'W' in the matter of fixation of pension also requires to be modified consequent to the date of regularisation as directed by this Court.
4. The respondent-Mysuru City Corporation shall await the Government Order regarding the re-
fixation of the period of regularization and thereafter pass fresh orders in the matter of fixation of the pension. To that extent, the Official Memorandum dated 22.10.2020 is also quashed and set aside.
5. As and when the Government Order is issued re-fixing the period of regularization of the petitioners, the respondent-Mysuru City Corporation shall re-issue an Official Memorandum re-fixing the pension of the petitioners taking into consideration the Government Orders that would be passed as directed by this Court.
9The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, the Government Order shall be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, the respondent-Mysuru City Corporation, shall also issue a fresh Official Memorandum in the matter of fixation of pension, within a period of two months from the date of issue of the Government Order.
Ordered accordingly.
In view of the above, pending I.As do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of.
Learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of two weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/