S.M.Patil vs The Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 1445 Kant

                                  :1:


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                               BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

       WRIT PETITION NO.100614/2019 (S-REG)

BETWEEN:
S.M. Patil,
Age 50 years, Occ: Municipal Worker,
R/o.: Sankeshwar Town Municipal Council,
Sankeshwar, Tq.: Hukkeri, Dist.: Belagavi.
                                                         ... Petitioner
(By Shri Shrisharsh A.Neelopant, Advocate)

AND:
1.     The Director,
       Directorate of Municipal Administration,
       9th Floor, Vishweshwaraiah Tower,
       Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 006.
2.     The Project Director/Deputy Commissioner,
       The District City Development Cell,
       Office of Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi.
3.     The Chief Officer,
       Town Municipal Council, Sankeshwar,
       Tq.: Hukkeri, Dist.: Belagavi.
                                                      ... Respondents
(By Shri Vinayak S.Kulkarni, AGA for R1 & R2;
 Shri K.S. Patil, Advocate for R3)

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of initial
appointment i.e., from 16.04.1992 who is working as Watchman in the
respondent No.3 Municipal Council by considering the representation of
the petitioner dated 12.12.2018 as per Annexure-D.

       This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing B-Group,
this day, the Court made the following:
                                        :2:

                                       ORDER

1. The petitioner claims that he was employed as a

Watchman on daily wage basis from 16.04.1992.

2. On 29.11.1999, the respondent No.1 directed the

respondent No.3 to provide service benefits on the principles of equal

pay for equal work. Thereafter, the Government of Karnataka issued a

notification dated 15.11.2006, in the light of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi in Civil Appeal

Nos.3595/199 and 3612/1999, notifying the daily wage employees

working in different cadres at different local bodies in the entire State

from 01.01.1986, for regularization.

3. On 29.03.2007, the respondent No.1 regularised the

services of the petitioner as Watchman from 01.12.1994, but did not

take into account the past services rendered by the petitioner from

16.04.1992. The petitioner thereafter submitted representation to

respondent No.2 on 12.12.2018. The petitioner claims that the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not considered the representations of the

petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since

the petitioner has rendered services in the same post from

16.04.1992, the past services rendered by the petitioners ought to

have been considered for the purpose of fixation of pay, pension and

terminal benefits.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other

hand submitted that the petitioner has accepted his regularization from

16.04.1992 and therefore, he cannot now retract and claim the benefit

from his initial appointment.

6. If the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on

16.04.1992, his past service deserves to be counted for the limited

purpose of fixation of pay, retirement benefits and consequent

pension.

7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The,

respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation of

the petitioner dated 12.12.2018 as per Annexure-D within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*