Karnataka High Court
Sri Prakash vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara ... on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.A. NO.963 OF 2021 (S-RES)
IN
W.P.No.890 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAKASH
S/O LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
O/O ADVISOR FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BENGALURU-560002.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. NAIK N.R. ADV.,)
AND:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560027
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (ADMN)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
---
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
WP NO.890/2021 (S-RES) DATED 13/07/2021 PERTAINING TO
THE APPELLANT IS HELD ENTITLED TO COUNT THE PERIOD OF
SERVICE FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE COMPLETED 10 YEARS
OF SERVICE AS A TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE i.e., 12/10/2005 AS
QUALIFYING SERVICE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
DETERMINATION OF EVERY TERMINAL BENEFITS AND
OBSERVATION MADE AS THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO
ANY ARREARS OF SALARY ON SUCH DETERMINATION.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.Naik N.R., learned counsel for the appellant.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 13.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.890/2021 by which the
writ petition preferred by the petitioner has been allowed in
part and the endorsement dated 10.06.2019 has been
quashed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are
that the appellant was appointed in the College run by
Bangalore City Corporation as First Division Assistant on a
consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month on 13.10.1995.
The appointment of the appellant was continued from time to
time. The appellant sought regularisation of his services.
However, no heed was paid to his claim by the respondents.
Thereupon, the appellant filed writ petition in
W.P.No.9268/2006 which was disposed of by the learned
Single Judge by an order dated 30.06.2008 in which a
direction was issued to reconsider the claim of the petitioner
for regularisation in view of the decision of the Supreme
Court in 'SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI AND OTHERS' (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Thereafter, by an order dated 12.08.2009, the claim of the
appellant seeking regularisation of his services was rejected.
The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in
W.P.No.27695/2009. The said writ petition was partly
allowed by a Bench of this Court by an order dated
03.07.2012 and the impugned order dated 12.08.2009 was
quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the
claim of the appellant for regularisation of his services within
a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the
order. The aforesaid order was challenged in a writ appeal
namely W.A.No.4271/2012 which was dismissed by a
Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 29.01.2013.
The respondents challenged the aforesaid order passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in SLP CC No.17433/2013
which was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 18.10.2013.
However, the order passed by this Court was not
implemented.
3. Thereupon, the appellant filed contempt petition.
During the pendency of the contempt petition, an order was
passed by the respondents on 26.10.2013 regularising the
services of the appellant from the date of order i.e.
26.10.2013. The contempt proceedings were dropped with
liberty to the appellant to assail the aforesaid order. The
appellant again filed writ petition namely
W.P.No.11286/2014. The aforesaid writ petition was
disposed of with a direction to reconsider the case of the
appellant in the light of the observations made in the order.
Thereafter, the endorsement dated 10.06.2019 was issued
by which the claim of the appellant seeking regularisation of
his services from retrospective effect was rejected.
4. The appellant challenged the validity of the aforesaid
order before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single
Judge quashed the endorsement dated 10.06.2019 and
directed that the appellant shall be entitled to count the
period of service from the date on which he completed 10
years of service as a temporary employee i.e. 12.10.2005 as
qualifying service only for the purposes of determination of
every terminal benefit. The appellant was not held entitled
to any arrears of salary on such termination. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant is entitled to monetary benefits since he has
rendered services from 1995 to 2005. It is further submitted
that the benefit of regularisation of services of the appellant
with effect from 1995 could not have been denied and
therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge
deserves to be set aside.
6. We have considered the submissions made on both
sides and have perused the record. The relevant extract of
order dated 03.07.2012 passed in W.P.No.27695/2009 reads
as under:
"The respondents are hereby directed to
regularise the services of the petitioner within
a time frame of 3 months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order."
7. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the
Division Bench as well as in appeal. There is no direction to
consider the claim of the appellant in retrospective effect.
The learned Single Judge of this Court, by placing reliance on
Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in
UMADEVI supra, has held that the appellant shall be entitled
to the benefit of regularisation after completion of minimum
10 years of service. Therefore, the appellant has rightly
been held to be not entitled to the monetary benefit as well
as arrears of salary for the aforesaid period and has been
granted benefit with effect from 12.10.2005 after completion
of the period of 10 years.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
ground to defer with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
