Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shivanna V M vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2017
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
W. P.No.33093/2014 (S-RES)
Between
Sri Shivanna V M
S/o Madaiah
Aged about 55 years
Graduate Assistant
Office of Research Range
Forest Officer
Mandya Research Range Forest Office
6th Cross, Subhashnagar
Mandya- 571 401. ... Petitioner
(By Smt Shilpa Rani - Advocate)
And
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by the Principal
Secretary to Government
Forest Department
M S Building
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator
Of Forests
'Aranya Bhavan'
18th Cross
Malleshwaram
Bangalore- 560 003.
[
2
3. The Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest
Research and Utilization
Arakere Mico Layout
Doreswami Palya
1st Cross, Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore-560 076.
4. The Chief Conservator of Forest
(Research)
Doresami Palya
1st Cross
Arakere Mico Layout
Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore- 560 076.
5. The Research Range
Officer
Aranya Bhavan
6th Cross
Subhash Nagar
Mandya 571 409. ...Respondents
(By Sri E S Indiresh-AGA)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the
respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner upon
completion of 10 years of service based on the order dated
03.10.2002 in Application Nos.9128-9164/2001, Order
dated 14.01.2003 in W.P.Nos.219-255/2003 (S-KAT) vide
Annexures-C, D, E (M.L Kesari case) and keeping in view
the various regularization orders passed after Umadevi's
case, a Chart vide Annexures-G to G4 and declare non-
consideration of case of the petitioner for regularization is
Arbitrary and illegal vide Annexure-F dated 30.07.1997
and Annexure-F1 dated 27.03.1996 and direct the
respondents to extend all consequential benefits such as
difference of salary, increment and fixation of salary on
regularization of service upon completion of 10 years
service.
3
This Writ petition is coming on for preliminary
hearing "B" group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA would submit that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case (in application Nos. 9128-9164/2001) praying for regularization of his service, having completed 10 years, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malathi Das (Retired) now P.B.Mahishy and Others
- vs - Suresh and Others reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 249. It is further submitted that this Court, in similar circumstance, has been pleased to grant a similar relief to the petitioner in W.P.No.5028/2017.
3. This Court in W.P.No.5028/2017 has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 4 respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein for implementation in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC Page 1 and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malathi Das (Retired) now P.B.Mahishy and Others - vs - Suresh and Others reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 249 and on the grounds of parity in the light of regularization of similarly placed workmen.
4. The learned AGA fairly submits that the petitioner in the writ petition is also similarly placed as the petitioner in W.P.No.5028/2017 and hence, the writ petition may be disposed off.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
6. Learned AGA accepts notice on behalf on behalf of the respondents.
5
7. The petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in regularizing of their services pursuant to the directions issued by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.9128-9164/2001 disposed of on 03.10.2002.
8. It is case of the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as a graduate Assistant which is equivalent to First Division Assistant in the Department of Forest at Mandya Division and despite long period of service, he was not accorded the relief of regularization. Hence, he approached the Tribunal seeking for an appropriate relief.
9. The Tribunal after hearing the parties including the current respondents, was pleased to allow the application and further directed that where the Authority finds that the applicant has put in 10 years of service, the respondents shall have to consider regularization of his services. It further directed that the entire exercise of examination and decision making be completed within a period of four weeks. Reliance is placed on the decision of 6 this Court rendered in W.P. Nos.40835-38/1999. The said order was carried in appeal in W.P. Nos.219-255/2003 (S-KAT) at Annexure-D, disposed of on 14.01.2003 by the respondents herein, wherein the Division Bench of this Court after examining the point was pleased to hold;
"The principle clearly appears to be that anyone employed continuously for more than 10 years on daily wage basis should be considered for regularization, provided there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee in securing or continuing in such daily wage employment and the employee possesses the prescribed qualification for the post to which he is considered for regularization."
Hence, the Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the writ petition preferred by the respondent/State impugning the direction of the Tribunal. A case, similar in nature was taken up by the State before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.13724/2006, disposed of on 16.04.2013, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the order and was pleased to observe as follows: 7
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the fact that the respondents have been in continuous service for 25-28 years, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter."
Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the direction issued by the Tribunal on the said application has become final.
10. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if the petition is restricted to the first prayer, the same would be considered and disposed of by the respondents within a period of two months.
11. It is seen that consideration of the case of the petitioner has been mandated by law and is not a matter of choice or concession that has to be advanced by the respondents. There is no justification for the inordinate delay by the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. The parameters for consideration of the case has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in innumerable cases, 8 more particularly in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 and further clarified in the case of Malathi Das (Retired) now P.B. Mahishy and Others - vs - Suresh and others reported in (2014)13 Supreme Court Cases 249 and as also by the orders of this Court, more particularly in W.P. No.43246-43294/2002 referred to supra. It is also seen that the respondents have considered the case of similarly situated persons and have granted the relief of regularization of their services.
12. In view of the above, direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for implementation in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC Page 1 and further clarified by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in the case of Malathi Das (Retired) now P.B. Mahishy and Others - vs - Suresh and others reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 249 and also on the 9 grounds of parity in the light of regularization of similarly placed workmen. The writ petition stand disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs/dl