Karnataka High Court
Sanjay Kumar And Ors vs The Karnataka Power And Ors on 6 December, 2021
Bench: R.Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.204622 OF 2018 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
1. SANJAY KUMAR
S/O RAMCHANDRAPPA KORE
AGE 44 YEARS,
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE/ JUNIOR ASST.
SUB-DIVN. OFFICE GESCOM
ALAND DIST. KALABURAGI
R/O BILAGUNDA TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI
2. MALLIKARJUN
S/O RAMAPPA
AGE 41 YEARS,
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE/ JUNIOR ASST.
RURAL SUB-DIVN. OFFICE GESCOM
KALABURAGI
R/O PLOT NO.179, UDANOOR ROAD,
VEERABHADRESHWAR COLONY,
NEAR RING ROAD, KALABURAGI
3. SURYAKANTH
S/O LINGANNA
AGE 52 YEARS,
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE/ JUNIOR ASST.
CITY SUB- DIVISION OFFICE GESCOM
KALABURAGI
R/O NEAR RAM MANDIR, BRAHMAPUR,
KALABURAGI
2
4. NAGARAJ
S/O VEERANNA ANNIGRI
AGE 44 YEARS
OCC: LEDGER MAINTENANCE/ JUNIOR ASST.
CITY SUB-DIVISION, GESCOM
KALABURAGI
R/O C/O MALLIKARJUN CLOTH STORES,
BRAHMAPUR,KALABURAGI
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. VILAS KUMAR MARTHANAD RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-09.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
BENGALURU-09.
3. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
GESCOM, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGANGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, RESPONDENT NOs.4 AND 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.UÀÄ.«.PÀA./¥Àæ ªÀå/¯É®/¸À¯C
É /»¸À-
3
1/2015-16/CYS-153 DATED 04.07.2015 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-H AND
CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OR MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES/REINSTATEMENT
THE PETITIONERS AND REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE
PETITIONERS WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE DATE OF THEIR
ORIGINAL/INITIAL APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE RESPONDENTS
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AS PER ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 13.08.2021 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have sought for quashing the
endorsement dated 04.07.2015 passed by the respondent
No.3 and consequently to issue writ in the nature of
mandamus to continue the services or reinstate their
services and regularize their services and extend all the
benefits granted to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.10146-
101467/2013 dated 15.12.2015, which attained finality in
Writ Appeal Nos.200007-200010/2016 and Writ Appeal
No.200140-200143/2016 dated 13.07.2016.
2. The petitioners claim that they employed as
Junior Assistant or Ledger Maintenance Staff on temporary
basis during the year 1999-2000. It is claimed that the
respondent Nos.3 to 5 continued the services of the
petitioners for nearly 10 years despite the fact that they
were temporary employees. It is claimed that the
petitioners were appointed through proper process and the
petitioners possessed the requisite qualification and
therefore, the acts of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in
discontinuing their services was illegal.
3. They claimed that a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.Nos.10146-101467/2013 had directed the
consideration of the case of the petitioners therein for
regularization of their services and the said order was
confirmed by the Division Bench. They also contended
that temporary employees appointed by the respondent
No.3 to 5, who were similarly situated as the petitioners
were regularized and therefore, the petitioners are entitled
to be treated alike. The petition is opposed by respondent
Nos.3 to 5 who contend that petitions are all workmen and
if they were aggrieved by the order terminating their
services, they ought to have approached the competent
Industrial Court and cannot approach this Court directly.
They also contend that this writ petition is filed belatedly
and there is no explanation for the delay in approaching
this Court.
4. In reply to the aforesaid contention, the counsel
for the petitioners submitted that notwithstanding the
judgment of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI (3) AND
OTHERS [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the respondents have
regularized the services of an "orderly" appointed on
temporary basis at the residence of the Managing Director
and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be treated
alike.
5. The facts in the present writ petition as well as
the facts involved in W.P.Nos.201565/2018 and
207310/2017, 208470/2017, 200642/2018, 201889/2018
and 203631/2018 are identical and contentions urged in
both these petitions by both the parties are identical.
6. In view of the disposal of W.P.Nos.201565/2018
and 207310/2017, 208470/2017, 200642/2018,
201889/2018 and 203631/2018, this writ petition merits
consideration and accordingly deserves to be allowed in
part.
This writ petition is allowed in part.
The respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to regularize
the petitioners from the date when they completed 10
years of service and provide them with continuity of
service and consequential benefits. The petitioners shall
be entitled to count their past services for the purpose of
notional fixation of pay and retirement benefits. However,
the petitioners shall not be entitled to back wages from the
day they last worked till the date of filing this writ petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
