Somayya vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1921 Kant

                                   1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                             PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                                AND
       THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

          WRIT PETITION NO.202471/2021 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

Sri.Somayya S/o Siddappa,
Aged about 58 years, Occ: Gardener,
O/o Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture
And Gardens, State Sector,
Near Mini Vidhana Soudha, Block-C-17,
Yadgiri, Dist: Yadgiri,
R/o at Chiranjeevi Nagar, Azeez Colony,
Near New Bus Stand,
Yadgiri-585 201.
                                                ... Petitioner

(By Sri. Mahesh Patil, Advocate)

AND:
1.     The State of Karnataka
       Represented by its
       Principal Secretary to Govt.
       Department of Horticulture,
       M.S.Building,
       Bengaluru-560 001.

2.     The Director of Horticulture,
       Lalbagh,
       Bengaluru-560 004.
                                  2




3.     Senior Assistant Director of
       Horticulture & Gardens,
       State Sector,
       Near Mini Vidhana Soudha, Block-C-17,
       Yadgiri District, Yadgiri-585 201.
                                                    ... Respondents

(By Sri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, HCGP)

       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of
Certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 19.07.2021
passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Kalaburagi Bench, in Application No.20016/2021 as at Annexure-C
and consequently to allow the Application filed before Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi Bench, as prayed for and
etc.

       This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group
this day, K.S. Hemalekha J., made the following:


                             ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition is assailing the order

dated 19.07.2021, passed in Application No.216/2021, on the

file of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi

("the KAT" for short), whereby the application filed by the

petitioner was dismissed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Tribunal.

3. The applicant was appointed as a daily wage

employee in the Department of Horticulture in the year 1980

and the services of the applicant was brought under the

monthly rated services from 06.08.1990 instead of regularizing

the services of the applicant as per the Government Order

dated 06.08.1990. This being so, the applicant submitted

several representations to the respondent/authority to

regularize the services as per the said Government Order

since the applicant has completed 2,400 days/10 years of

service as daily wage employee/monthly rated employee.

Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement on 17.02.2014

stating that the applicant and others are not entitled for

regularization in light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka &

others vs. Umadevi [(2006)4 SCC 1] (Umadevi) since the

applicant did not fulfill four conditions of the said order. Being

aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.2

dated 17.02.2014, the applicant approached the KAT vide

Application No.216/2021. By order dated 19.07.2021, the KAT

dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches

as well as on merits. It is this order, the applicant has

challenged in this writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader.

5. Sri Mahesh Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the approach of the Tribunal in

rejecting the said application on the ground of delay and

laches is without application of mind and without considering

the fact that the similarly placed persons, like the applicant

had approached the Tribunal challenging the endorsement

dated 17.02.2014 and the endorsement was set aside and

confirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further contended

that the delay in approaching the Tribunal assailing the

rejection of endorsement was due to bona fide reason as the

applicant was under the bona fide belief that the benefit

accorded to the similarly placed persons would be afforded to

the applicant also and thus, the failure on the part of the

applicant to approach the Tribunal was due to the said reason

and would contend that there is no delay in approaching the

Tribunal.

6. Per contra, Sri Mallikarjuna C. Basreddy, learned

High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents would contend that there is an inordinate delay in

approaching the Tribunal and the applicant cannot seek the

relief extended to the similarly placed persons and it cannot be

cited as a precedent. He would further contend that the

applicant is not entitled for the regularization on the said

ground and sought for dismissal of the petition.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record, a careful perusal of the order

of the KAT as well as the material on record would depict that

the endorsement dated 17.02.2014 rejecting the

representations of the petitioners and others for regularization

of their services in light of the Government Order dated

06.08.1990 and the subsequent orders, were rejected by

respondent No.2. The similarly placed persons like the

applicant namely, Madamma, Shivalingamma, Ramegowda,

Bettaiah and B.K.Ramegowda had approached the KAT

assailing the said endorsement in Application Nos.4499-

4500/2014 and Application Nos.4501-4503/2014, wherein the

KAT vide its order dated 29.03.2016, set aside the

endorsement and directed the respondents to regularize the

services of the applicants. Aggrieved by the order of the

Tribunal, the respondent/authorities had approached this

Court in W.P.No.59792/2016 and W.P.Nos.5511-5514/2017,

wherein this Court, after reconsideration and re-appreciation

of the said petitions, dismissed the writ petitions vide order

dated 03.02.2017. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of writ

petitions, the respondents filed S.L.P.No.33407/2018 (Civil)

before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide

order dated 01.10.2018 dismissed the SLP and the order for

regularization of the services of the employees was confirmed

in the said SLP.

8. The applicant, being in par with the similarly

placed persons, was under the bona fide impression that the

Tribunal having set aside the endorsement dated 17.02.2014

and the respondents, while implementing the order of the

Tribunal also would consider the regularization order and

grant benefits to the applicant on par with the persons who

were similarly placed, but on being approached by the

applicant/petitioner, the respondents held that the benefit

given to the persons who had challenged the endorsement

dated 17.02.2014 would not be available to the present

applicant. On this ground, having no other alternative, the

petitioner had to challenge the said endorsement dated

17.02.2014 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on

misconceived note held that the benefit of parity cannot be

given to the persons who have approached the Court late. As

the giving of benefit on the basis of an order of a Court and it

is extended in personam, is limited only to the applicants

before the competent judicial forum. The Tribunal held that

there is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in

approaching the Court and dismissed the application on the

ground of delay and laches.

9. The Tribunal fell in error in not considering that

common endorsement dated 17.02.2014 was challenged by

Madamma and others and the petitioner who was left out due

to the reasons stated in an application filed by the applicant for

condonation of delay by an affidavit dated 08.01.2021 has

specifically contended that he was serving as a monthly rated

employee getting meager salary and he had to maintain his

aged parents and children and due to financial hardship, he

could not file the application before the Tribunal along with

other persons who had challenged in the year 2016. It is also

contended by the applicant/petitioner that since the similarly

placed persons are given regularization of their services on

the same endorsement, he was in the bona fide belief that he

would also be placed on parity with that of the other person.

The action of the respondent is discriminatory and also in

violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Purnendu Mukopadhyay

& others vs. V.K.Kapoor & another [(2008)14 SCC 403]

(V.K.Kapoor) held that the Constitution of India under Article

14, held that the judgment of Court should not be read as a

statute, it has to be read in its entirety. The State cannot treat

the employees with the similarly situated employees

differently. It cannot implement the orders for some

employees and refuse to do so for others. Thus, in our

considered view, the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the

applications/representations of the petitioner on the ground of

delay and laches and also on merits holding that he cannot be

given equity with the similarly placed persons is not

sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

10. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Umadevi is squarely applicable to the case of the

petitioner and the parameters and guidelines as enumerated

in the said case is totally satisfied by the petitioner. In the

present case, the petitioner/employee has been put in service

for long years and it will surely not be reasonable if the claim

of regularization is denied even after such a long period of

service. Hence, apart from discrimination Article 14 of the

Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness

and unreasonableness if the employees who have put in such

a long service are denied the benefit of regularization. Thus, in

our considered opinion, the order of the Tribunal requires to

be set aside.

11. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed.

(ii) The endorsement dated 17.02.2014 is hereby

quashed.

(iii) The impugned order dated 19.07.2021 passed in

Application No.20016/2021 by the Karnataka

State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi Bench

is hereby set aside.

(iv) The respondents are directed to consider the

services of the applicant as per the Government

Order dated 06.08.1990 and grant benefits to the

petitioner.

(v) The respondents are directed to implement the

direction of this Court within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy

of this order.

(vi) The respondents are directed to regularize the

services of the petitioner/applicant as Gardener

by extending equal treatment vide order dated

16.03.1998 passed in favour of similarly placed

persons.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

S*