1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.29885 of 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: ".... to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a) by declaring the entire action of the respondents in not regularizing/ absorbing the services of the petitioners as cook/kamati/watchman even though they are fully eligible satisfied criteria laid down by Honble Supreme court in Para 53 of its judgment in 2006 4 SCC 1 despite of their repeated requests is as highly illegal arbitrary unjust improper colorable exercise of power and contrary to the above judgment including Division Bench Judgment of this Honble court dt 19 9 2017 in WP No 27217/2017 reported in 2018 2 ALD 282 DB BAnd consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith consider regularization of services of petitioners as classIV employees such as cook/kamati/watchman in which the petitioners are working in terms of criteria laid down Para 53 of judgment in 2006 4 SCC 1 R/w Division Bench of this Honorable court dt 19 9 2017 in WP No 27217/2017 reported 2018 2 ALD 282 DB by duly finalizing the proposals submitted by the l St respondent vide his letter Rc NO A2/864/2021 dated 27 10 2021 to the 3rd respondent......".
Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.
It has been contended by the petitioners that they were appointed on daily wage basis during 1992 and they have rendered more than two and half decades of service with the respondents, but the respondents are not regularizing their services. 2
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi1, but the respondents are not considering the cases of the petitioners for regularisation. The petitioners have submitted a detailed representation to the District Collector and the District Collector was pleased to recommend the cases of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred supra, to the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 27.10.2021 and the said recommendations are pending before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent in turn must forward the proposal to the 4th respondent, who is the competent authority to regularize the services of the petitioners. But, the 3rd respondent is not forwarding the proposal submitted by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to forward the proposal submitted by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent within a reasonable period of time. Thereafter, let the 4th respondent consider the cases of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that since the 1st respondent has recommended the case of the petitioners for regularization to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent would forward the proposal to the 4th 1 2006 (4) SCC 1 3 respondent and the 4th respondent would take a decision within a reasonable period of time.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to forward the proposal submitted by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent within a reasonable period of time, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such proposal being received from the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent shall consider the cases of petitioners for regularization of their services strictly in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred supra, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in another four months thereafter.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 24.11.2021 Prv 4