Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka State Taluk Mojini ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.41934/2017 (S-RES)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION No.46390/2017 (S-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.41934/2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TALUK
MOJINI OPERATORS
(LAND SURVEY DEPARTMENT)
WELFARE ASSOCIATION
NO.10, AGALAKUPPE,
DABASPET POST, SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562 111
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI.RAJU H.,
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA.
2. SRI RAJU H.,
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS MOJINI OPERATOR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK OFFICE,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
2
3. NARASIMHA MURTHY N.,
S/O NARASIMAIAH
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
4. RAJESHA C.N.,
S/O NARAYANA C.S.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS MOJINI OPERATOR
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
5. REKHA H.M.,
D/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA H.E.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
6. SHEELA K.B.,
D/O BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 418.
7. SURESHA S.M.,
S/O MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 222.
8. SUMADHARA E.,
S/O LATE ESHWARA REDDY C.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 427.
3
9. G.N.MOHAN KUMAR
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 560 208.
10. JAGADISHA PRASAD B.A.,
S/O ASHWATHNARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
GUDIBANDE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208.
11. CHANNAMALLIKARJUNA
S/O SOMASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DIST.-561 208.
12. MANJUNATHA B.N.,
S/O E.NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207.
13. MOUNISH R.,
S/O. RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
SIDDALAGATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
14. MANJUNATHA K.N.,
S/O NAREPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
4
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
MUNGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125.
15. M.S.MURALIDHAR
S/O. M. S. NARAYAN BHAGAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
KUVEMPU NAGARA,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 524.
16. SHIVAPRASAD
S/O. SWAMY K.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
17. RAMESHA D.C.
S/O. CHANDRAPPA. D. M.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
K.R. PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.
18. SHANKARA
S/O. KALAPPA ARKACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 581 110.
19. NAGARAJU P.,op
S/O. SIDDANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
SINGAV TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 110.
5
20. GOPAL SWAMY RAO INAMDARA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HIKERRURU TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 111.
21. KALAPPA AKKASALI
S/O. VEERABADRAPPA. A.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HOVINAHADAGALI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 219.
22. MAHANTHESH
S/O. SHEKARAPPA M.S.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
KUDLIGI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 135.
23. MARIYAPPA H.,
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA. H.,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 212.
24. N. VEERENDRA
S/O N.BASAVANAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
BELLARY TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 101.
25. MALLAIAH H.,
S/O. EIRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 121.
6
26. M.SADIQ
S/O M. SUBHAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
SANDUR TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 119.
27. VENKATESH
S/O. LATE R. KUPPUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HOSAPET,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 201.
28. CHANDRAKANTH
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
ALANDA TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 302.
29. SAIFAN PATEL
S/O KHADAR PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
AFZALPURA HOBLI,
AFZALPURA TALUK - 585 301.
30. SMT. JYOTHI
W/O. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
GULBARGA TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 104.
31. DIGAMBAR
S/O. CHANDRASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
7
CHITHAPURA TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 225.
32. GUNDAPPA
S/O. LACHAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
CHINCOHALLI TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 307.
33. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O SHIVARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
SEDAM TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 320.
34. VISHWANATH H.,
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT - 582 377.
35. PARASHURAMA
S/O. RANGAPPA NRERA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
YELABURGA TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 236.
36. BASAVARAJU
S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA HOTTERA,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
KUSTAGI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 277.
37. KAMARAJ M. DURADUNDI
S/O. MARUTHI,
8
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
RAIBAG TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 317.
38. AJITH PATIL
S/O PATIL. H.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
BELAGAUM TALUK,
BELAGAUM DISTRICT - 590 003.
39. GURULING BASAPPA TANGADI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
CHIKKODI TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 201.
40. SIDDAPPA
S/O. RAMAPPA ADANI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
GOKAK TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 307.
41. RUDRAYYA PARTHANALLI URF MATHAD
S/O ALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
ATHANI TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 304.
42. QUTUBUDDIN SANADI
S/O. BILANSAHEB,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HUKKERI TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 309.
9
43. LATHAMANI H.S.
D/O. SHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201.
44. ANUJA GOVIND GIRI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
KHANAPURA TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT-591 302.
45. RAVINDRA VITTHAL KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
BAILAHONGAL TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 125.
46. CHENDREGOWDA
S/O SHIVARUDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
KASABA HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
47. ANANDA N.,
S/O SHIVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511.
48. SUMA R.,
D/O. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
10
49. SMT. ASHWINI K.,
D/O. DHANANJAYA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
50. SMT. POORNIMA SHETTY
W/O. SANJIVA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.
51. SRINIVAS PRASAD
S/O. LATE ANNAPPA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
BYNDOOR SPECIAL TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 214.
52. RUPESH R. BANDARI
S/O. RAMESH BANDARI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
KUMATA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 343.
53. GANESH NAIK
S/O. MASTAPPA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
BHATKAL TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 320.
54. NASREEN BANU
D/O. HUSEN SAB,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
MUNDGOD TALUK,
11
KARWAR DISTRICT - 581 349.
55. RAGHAVENDRA S. BHAT
S/O. SRI. KRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
YALLAPURA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 359.
56. SWETHA R. PULKAR
D/O. SEETHA R. PULKAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HONNAVAR TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334.
57. YOGESHA I.M.,
S/O.I.B.MOGANNA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT - 577 132.
58. VIJAY KUMAR
S/O.VEERABHADRA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 577 101.
59. MURULIDHARA G.,
S/O D.GALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228.
60. YATHESH R.,
S/O.RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
12
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-517 541.
61. KUMAR A.R.,
S/O.RAJU A.P.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
N.R.PURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 134.
62. SUBHAS BAJANTHRI
S/O.LAXMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
BAJANTHRI ONI,
HUNAGUNDA TALUK,
BAGALAKOT DISTRICT - 587 118.
63. SATHISH S.G.,
S/O.SHIVAKUMARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HONNALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 201.
64. VEERAPPA B.G.,
S/O.GANGADHARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 552.
65. VISHWANTH N.,
S/O.JAGADISHAPPA N.,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 552.
13
66. D.N.RAJESH
S/O.D.N.NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526.
67. KARIBASAPPA
S/O.OBAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.
68. PRASHANTHI S.ACHARI
W/O.DEVARAJU T.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HIRIYURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 598.
69. PRASANNA KUMAR R.S.,
S/O.R.C.SHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
CHITRADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
70. PAPAYYA
S/O.BORANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.
71. S.SWAMYNATH
S/O.SRINIVAS GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
14
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107.
72. MAHADEV SWAMY K.G.,
S/O.GOVINDA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
MIRLI HOBLI, K.R.NAGARA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 601.
73. BASAVA NAYKA
S/O.SIDDANAYKA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HUNASUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105.
74. MAHADEVA T.P.,
S/O.PATTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
TALAKADU HOBLI,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 124.
75. BALAKRISHNA B.R.,
S/O.RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 129.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V.LAXMINARAYANA, SR. ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL
HEARING))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
15
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, 'SACHIVALAYA',
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
1(a). STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
5TH FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK,
M.S.BUILDING,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER
DATED 06.06.2019)
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY
SETTLEMENT & LAND RECORDS,
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS),
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS),
16
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 222.
8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS),
SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT,
SHIVAMOGA - 577 222.
9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRCT,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.
10. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS),
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.
11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 534.
12. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 534.
13. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI - 581 110.
14. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
17
(LAND RECORDS),
HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI - 581 110.
15. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY - 583 135.
16. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS)
BELLARY DISTRICT,
BELLARY - 583 135.
17. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
GULBARGA - 585 104.
18. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS),
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
GULBARGA - 585 104.
19. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL - 583 227.
20. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS),
KOPPAL DISTRICT,
KOPPAL - 583 227.
21. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM DISTRICT,
BELGAUM - 591 201.
22. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS),
BELGAUM DISTRICT,
BELGAUM - 591 201.
18
23. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 571 511.
24. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS)
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 571 511.
25. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UDUPI DISTRICT,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.
26. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS),
UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-574 104.
27. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS), KARWAR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 301.
28. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
KARWAR - 581 301.
29. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
BAGALKOT - 587 101.
30. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS)
BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
BAGALKOT - 587 101.
31. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
19
DAVANGERE - 577 552.
32. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS)
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANGERE - 577 552.
33. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 571 107.
34. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS)
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 571 107.
35. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU - 572 129.
36. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER
(LAND RECORDS)
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU - 572 129.
37. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.
38. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND RECORDS)
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.
39. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
20
40. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, DPAR (E-GOVERNANCE)
PUBLIC SERVICE, SAKALA MISSION
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
41. THE DIRECTOR
DPAR (E-GOVERNANCE)
PUBLIC SERVICE, SAKALA
MISSION, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG A/W
SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM ORDER
DTD.6.9.2017 AND 7.9.2017 VIDE ANNEX-AH, AH1 AND
AH2 SERIES ARE ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLES 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA.
IN WRIT PETITION No.46390/2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TALUK MOJINI
OPERATORS (LAND SURVERY DEPARTMENT)
WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
NO.10, AGALAKUPPE,
DABASPET POST,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562 111
21
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI RAJU H.,
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
2. NAGASHETTY
S/O.KARASABAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKIGN AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
BSAVA KALYANA TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT-585327.
3. SHIV KUMAR
S/O GURUBASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
BIDAR TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
4. VEERABHADRAPPA
S/O.BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
BHALKI TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 328.
5. SHIVSHARANAPPA
S/O.CHANABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
HUMNABAD TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 329.
6. RAJENDRA
S/O.DEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
AURAD TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326.
22
7. SURESH
S/O.MAHANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
SINDHANUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 128.
8. RUDRAMUNI
S/O.GANGADHARAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
LINGASUGUR TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 122.
9. VEERABHARAYYA
S/O KARIVEERAYYA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
MASKI TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT-584124
10. VIRUPAXAYYA
S/O SHAMBHULINGAYYA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
MANVI TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 123.
11. SHIVAKUMARA
S/O RUDRAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
JEWARGI TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 310.
12. SOLABANNA GOWDA
S/O SHANTHA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
SHAHAPURA TALUK
23
YADGIRI DISTRICT - 585 223.
13. MAHESH Y NAYAK
C/O RAMACHANDRA SHIVAPPA BELYAL
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
HUBLI TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 024.
14. MANJUNATH DHARWAD
S/O PHAKIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
DHARWAD TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 001.
15. BHAMINI K.N.,
D/O NIGAPPA
AGED 23 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
SORABA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429.
16. SALEEM
S/O SYED HANEEF
AGED 27 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
RAICHUR TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 101.
17. BABU
S/O SALEEM
AGED 31 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
DEVADURGA TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 113.
18. LAXMI S. PUJAR
D/O SHIVAPPA
AGED 25 YEARS
24
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
RAMDURGA TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 123.
19. MANJUNATHA N.,
S/O NANJUNDASWAMY
AGED 37 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313.
20. LINGESH
S/O GANESHA
AGED 37 YEARS
WORKING A TALUK MOJINI OPERARATOR,
MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT -570 001.
21. DEVARAJU H.N.,
S/O LINGAIH
AGED 32 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
NANJANGUDU TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301.
22. N. RENUKESHWARA
S/O NAGARAJAIAH
AGED 30 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 076.
23. GANGARAJU.D.M.,
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 31 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
DODDABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 203.
25
24. ASHIF AHMMAD MULLA
S/O MAKTUM HUSSAIN,
AGED 27 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
SHIRAHATTI TALUK
GADAG DISTRICT - 582 101.
25. DEVARAJU J.,
S/O JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED 30 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
26. SHIVANAND AMEIGER
S/O LAKKAPA,
AGED 36 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
KUNDGOL TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 581 113.
27. A.B.CHIDANANDA
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED 41 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 112.
28. RANJITH KUMAR
S/O VASANTA SAPAL
AGED 32 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
BELTHANGADI TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214.
29. CHARAN RAJ
S/O VAMANA POOJARI
AGED 32 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
MANGALUR TALUK
26
MANGALUR DISTRICT - 574 219.
30. IMAM SAB
S/O MAKTUMASAB MORABAD
AGED 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
RAJUGANDHI NAGAR GADAG,
NEAR MASID ROAD TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT - 582 101.
31. ASHOK KUMAR P.,
S/O MANKU
AGED 32 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
BANTWAL TALUK,
MANGALURU DISTRICT - 574 323.
32. KARTHIK BABU G.M.,
S/O MARI GOWDA
AGED 32 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
SRIRANGAPATTA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415.
33. CHALUVARAJ C.B.,
S/O BUDDEGOWDA,
AGED 33 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.
34. C.SOMAPRAKASH
S/O R.CHRISTADAS
AGED 45 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
ALURU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
35. PARVATHI ESHWAR MANGROOL
S/O ESHWAR
27
AGED 37 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
KANKANAVADI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 719.
36. KRISHNAMURTHY M.C.,
S/O CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED 46 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR,
CHANNARAIPATTA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211.
37. DEVANDRA
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED 38 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
HOLENARISIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN - 573 210.
38. SEEMAN
S/O LATE ARJUN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
CHITTGUPPA TALUK
BIDAR - 585 402.
39. SHANKARAPPA
S/O MARIBASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
NARAGUNDA TALUK
GADAG - 582 207.
40. ANIL KUMAR R.,
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TALUK MOJINI OPERATOR
ANEKAL TALUK
28
ANEKAL - 562 106.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V.LAXMINARAYAN, SR. ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL
HEARING))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
'SACHIVALAYA', M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
OF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (E-GOVERNANCE)
(PUBLIC SERVICE SAKALA MISSION)
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (E-GOVERNANCE)
(PUBLIC SERVICE SAKALA MISSION)
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. UNDER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (E-GOVERNANCE)
(PUBLIC SERVICE SAKALA MISSION)
29
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT
& LAND RECORDS
K R CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR DISTRICT
RAICHUR - 584 101.
8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
RAICHUR DISTRICT
RAICHUR - 584 101.
9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD DISTRICT
DHARWAD - 580 114.
10. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
DHARWAD DISTRICT
DHARWAD - 580 114.
11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 214.
12. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
30
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 214.
13. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALURU DISTRICT
MANGALURU - 574 219.
14. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
MANGALURU DISTRICT
MANGALURU - 574 219.
15. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
16. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
17. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT
BIDAR - 585401
18. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
BIDAR DISTRICT
BIDAR - 585 401.
19. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KALABURGI DISTRICT
KALBURGI - 585 101.
20. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
KALABURGI DISTRICT
31
KALBURGI -585 101.
21. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YADHGIRI DISTRICT
YADHGIRI - 585 201.
22. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
YADHGIRI DISTRICT
YADHGIRI - 585 201.
23. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM DISTRICT
BELGAUM - 590 001.
24. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
BELGAUM DISTRICT
BELGAUM - 590 001.
25. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU - 570 001.
26. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001.
27. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GADAG DISTRICT
GADAG - 582 101.
28. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
GADAG DISTRICT
GADAG - 582 101.
32
29. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 571 511.
30. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA - 571 511.
31. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA DISTRICT
DODDABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 203.
32. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
DODDABALLAPURA DISTRICT
DODDABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 203.
33. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
34. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
35. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHAMRAJNAGARA DISTRICT
CHAMRAJANAGARA - 571 440.
36. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
CHAMRAJANAGARA DISTRICT
CHAMRAJANAGARA - 571 440.
33
37. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 573 201.
38. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS)
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 573 201.
39. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT DISTRICT
BAGALKOT - 587 101.
40. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (LAND RECORDS),
BAGALKOT DISTICT,
BAGALKOT - 587 101.
41. AKHILA ENTERPRISES
BARAMAPPA NAGARA 2ND CROSS,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 402.
42. GEMINI SECURITY SERVICES
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
43. SHUBAM ENTERPRISES IT PARK
HUBLI - 580 024.
44. BHUVANESHWARI MAHILA VIDHA
VUDDESHA SANGHA
HUKKERI
BELGUAM DISTRICT - 590 001.
45. KEONICS
SHANTHINAGARA K.H.ROAD,
BANGALURU - 560 027.
34
46. GUTTI ASAVESHWAR MAN POWER
AGENCY TALIKOTE
YADGIRI - 585 201.
47. PARICHAYA COMPUTERS
MANJAPPA COMPLEX
TIPTUR - HASSAN ROAD,
GANDSI HAND POST,
ARASIKERE TALUK - 573 103.
48. SPARTHAN INFO SOLUTIONS
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSURU - 570 023.
49. HINDUSTAN SECURITY
SERVICES CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
50. PUROHIT COMPUTERS AND IT SERVICES
GULBARGA - 585 101.
51. BIDAR ZILLA KARMIKA SEVEGALA
VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARA SANGHA
NIYAMITA D.C.OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401.
52. CB SECURITY AGENCIES
MANGALURU - 575 001.
53. GLOBAL AGENCIES
-INDIA DEDUCTIVE SECURITY FORCE
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.
54. M.K.BELVADI CONTRACTERS RAILWAY
BSNL AND STATE GOVT. DEPT,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 101.
55. SHRI NARADAMUNI SEVA SAMITI
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
56. CHAMARAJ ODEYAR MAN POWER AGENCIES
35
MULABAGILU,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST. - 563 131.
57. SKY LINE ENTERPRISES,
BUS-STAND ROAD,
HAVERI - 581 110.
58. OLEKAR WELFARE SOCIETY
KOPPAL DIST. - 583 231.
59. GLOBAL MAN POWER AGENCY
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG A/W
SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 TO R40;
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
NOTICE TO R41, R43 & R51 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT
VIDE ORDER DATED 04.09.2018;
R42, 44, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58 AND 59 ARE
SERVED;
MEMO FILED FOR SERVING R47, 48 & 57 THROUGH
HAND SUMMONS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF
THE PETITIONERS ON THE BASIS OF MANDAMUS ISSUED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT W.P.NO.30453-30528/2014
DATED 01.09.2014, AS PER ANNEXURE-AN;
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
36
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question Official Memoranda dated 06.09.2017 and
07.09.2017, by which, services of the petitioners were
dispensed with and have sought for various
consequential directions including a direction to hold
that the petitioners would be entitled to regularization.
2. For the sake of convenience all the petitioners
except their Association would be referred to as Mojini
Operators in the course of this order.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present
petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as
follows:
First petitioner is an Association of Karnataka
State Taluk Mojini Operators and the remaining
petitioners in both these petitions are working as Mojini
Operators. The 1st petitioner claims to be a registered
Association with the aim and objective of espousing the
cause of its members, who were all working as Mojini
Operators in the Nemmadhi (TA) Back Office Centres.
On 16-04-2009, a circular was issued by the office of
the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records
depicting procedure to be followed by Mojini operators
in discharging their functions and the nature of duties.
The petitioners in both these petitions were all engaged
as Mojini operators through outsource agency of a
company called COMAT Technologies Private Limited in
the entire State beginning from the financial year 2007-
08. It is the claim of the petitioners that they are all
working without break from 2007-2008.
4. In the years from 2011 to 2013, tender was
awarded to Mysuru IT Solutions Private Limited for
engagement of Mojini operators in the State. The
petitioners are spread over 177 taluks and were all
functioning from the year 2007-08 and had put in
various years of service ranging from 3 to 9. It is an
admitted fact that the petitioners were engaged through
outsource agencies and not through the process of
recruitment.
5. The State Government promulgated an Act
called the Karnataka Public Service Act, 2011 and fixed
time limit under the said enactment for rendering
services to the public in various fields. One such
service was, delivery of 11-E sketches, khata and
pahani within an outer limit of 30 days from the date of
application. The number of services were raised to 419
in 44 different Departments under the Karnataka Public
Service Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act,'). The job of the
petitioners was to issue receipts, take print out of
documents that were prepared by the surveyor and aid
in the compliance of time limit fixed under the Act. It is
the claim of the petitioners that their services were
indispensable for compliance within the mandatory time
limit stipulated under the Act. Various jobs performed
by the petitioners are also pleaded in the petitions.
Initially, Mojini Centres were established in each of the
taluks with effect from 2008. Later on, Mojini Centres
were established in Nada Kacheris of every Hobli. The
petitioners also work as Data Entry Operators in Mojini
Centres and Nada Kacheries in several taluks.
6. On 01-11-2013, the Government notified a
Sakala Scheme again under an Act called the Karnataka
Sakala Service Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act, 2011). In
terms of the said Act, 2011, power to invite tender was
given to the Deputy Commissioner and the Chairman of
the Sakala Scheme in the State as also for the purpose
of engagement of personnel under the Scheme. The
Mojini Operators/petitioners claim to be working along
with Sakala workers from 2013 onwards, in various
capacities and for various public services. It is the
claim of the petitioners that their work would commence
from 8 a.m. and stretch upto 9 p.m., since Mojini
Operators were made to do back office works in the
Office of the Tahsildar and miscellaneous works were
being assigned to the petitioners. Things standing thus,
certain Official Memoranda were issued by the Office of
the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records on
06.09.2017 and 07.09.2017, indicating certain names of
Mojini Operators to be sent for training on conducting
land survey and directed that those names in the
Official Memoranda, to report to duties for training.
This innocuous action of the State is called in question
in these petitions. The ground of challenge is that, in
the garb of sending names for training, the ID and the
key that was given to the petitioners when they were
engaged is taken away. Taking away all the keys
amount to termination of their services as they lose
their log-in ID. Without log-in ID, the services of the
petitioners are imaginary. Therefore, on this plea that
the log-in IDs' of the petitioners were taken away, these
petitions are filed seeking quashing of the orders by
which, certain personnel were sent for training and all
consequential action taken thereto.
7. Heard Sri V. Laxminarayana, learned senior
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dhyan Chinnappa,
learned Additional Advocate General along with
Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondents.
8. The learned senior counsel,
Sri V. Lakshminarayana, would vehemently argue and
contend that though the petitioners were engaged
through outsource agencies, they have been doing the
work of regular Data Entry Operators in whatever
nomenclature the petitioners were engaged. The
petitioners who were engaged as Mojini Operators had
completed more than 9 years of regular service and the
services of the petitioners are indispensable for the
State to perform its statutory obligations. The learned
senior counsel would emphasise on the fact that the
petitioners are all entitled for regularization of their
services as they are fully qualified to hold the posts of
Data Entry Operators. The services of the petitioners
were utilized by the State at the time when Nemmadi
Kendras or Sakala Centres were at the nascent stage
and having utilized their services for its development,
cannot leave the petitioners in lurch now. He would
submit that despite the interim order, salary for close to
three years is yet to be paid to the petitioners.
8.1. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate
General, Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, would vehemently
refute the submissions made and contentions advanced
and submits that the petitioners have no right to seek
regularization as they are engaged through outsource
agencies without following any norms of recruitment.
They were initially engaged for issuance of receipt and
taking print out of documents in the Sakala Centres
and have rendered service on a consolidated pay that
was paid through outsource agencies. There is no
employer - employee relationship between the State and
the petitioners. Challenging an innocuous order of
sending few Mojini Operators for training and interim
orders were sought not to terminate the services of the
petitioners. By the time the interim order was granted,
most of the petitioners were not even working as they
were engaged through outsource agencies. On the
strength of certain contempt proceedings, the
petitioners have received a windfall by way of salary
despite not rendering any work. In the light of the
direction given by the contempt Bench, the State is
entitled to recover entire salary that is paid to the
petitioners without performing any duty and would seek
dismissal of the writ petitions with such liberty to
recover the salary paid.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material on record.
10. The afore-narrated facts not being in dispute
are not reiterated. Certain orders passed by this Court
in these petitions and their aftermath i.e., the contempt
proceedings are germane to be noticed. This Court by
its order dated 18.09.2017, in writ petition
Nos.41934/2017, on the ground that the petitioners
had worked for more than 9 years and continuing in the
10th year as Mojini Operators and in the guise of the
aforesaid training orders, the State is taking action
indirectly to terminate the petitioners and therefore,
directed that the petitioners shall not be terminated till
the next date of hearing. Another co-ordinate Bench of
this Court also granted an interim order on 12.03.2018,
in the connected writ petition No.46390/2017. After the
said orders were passed by the co-ordinate Benches of
this Court, the petitioners alleging non-implementation
of the interim orders by not putting the petitioners back
to service, initiated contempt proceedings in
C.C.C.Nos.1971/2017 and 2157/2017 and several
orders are passed by the Division Bench dealing with
Contempt of Court cases. Certain orders passed by the
Court hearing the contempt petitions are germane for
consideration of the present issue i.e., order dated
22.02.2018 and the order dated 10.06.2019, closing the
contempt proceedings. The order dated 22.02.2018,
read as follows:
"Sri V. Lakshmi Narayana, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, on instructions, submits that
the petitioners have been terminated
from service subsequent to the interim
order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure - A),
whose disobedience is complained of
herein. The learned Senior Counsel
further submits that the petitioners have
not been paid their salaries. His
submission is placed on record."
The order dated 10.06.2019, read as follows:
"4. The learned Additional
Government Advocate submits that in
terms of para 6 of the affidavit, the
salary would be paid as expeditiously as
possible in terms of the Government
Order dated 09.04.2018, within four
weeks from today.
The proceedings are dropped.."
(Emphasis supplied)
Another contempt petition was filed in
C.C.C.No.546/2020 alleging aggravated contempt
against the State. This Court passed several orders in
the said contempt petition. The orders that are
germane are necessary to be noticed. The order dated
18.11.2020 reads as follows:
"We direct the complainants to implead
the State of Karnataka as a formal party
respondent No.17 (not as an accused).
The amended petition shall be filed
within two weeks.
For physically carrying out the
amendment, we grant time of eight weeks. A
copy of the amended petition shall be served
to the office of the learned Advocate General.
Issue notice to the second accused
returnable on 11th December 2020.
For the time being, the personal
presence of the second accused is dispensed
with subject to the condition that he shall be
always represented through his advocate."
Order dated 10.02.2021, reads as follows:
"The learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners-complainants states that
the complainants want to confine the
allegation of contempt only to the first and
second respondents-accused. Notice has
already been issued to the second accused.
However, notice has not been issued to the
first accused. T
Though prima facie, we have come to
the conclusion that this is a case for framing a
charge, even on this aspect, the first accused
will have to be heard. We, accordingly, issue
notice to the first accused returnable on 1st
March, 2021 in accordance with Rule 8 of the
High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court
Proceedings) Rules, 1981. The personal
presence of the first accused is dispensed
with for the time being subject to the condition
that he shall be always represented before
the Court by his advocate.
Considering the fact that prima
facie, we are of the view that this is a
case for framing charge, it is for the
State Government to decide whether it
wants to comply with the assurance
given in the counter affidavit of Shri
C.N.Shreedhara (Annexure-C) by paying
remuneration/salary to the complainants
except the first complainant."
Order dated 01-03-2021, reads as follows:
"Learned Government Advocate has
filed a memo dated 26.02.2021, a copy
of which is served on learned Advocate
appearing for complainant today,
whereunder it is stated that by order
dated 24.02.2021 a sum of
Rs.1,28,46,780.89 has been released by
way of salary to 49 Data Entry Operators
working in the respective Districts to be
disbursed through the concerned Deputy
Commissioners.
Said memo is placed on record.
Complainants counsel to respond to the said
memo.
Re-list on 08.03.2021."
(Emphasis supplied)
In terms of the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2021, the
Government filed a memo indicating that a sum of
Rs.1,28,46,780/- was released for payment of salary to
49 Data Entry Operators or Mojini Operators through
the concerned Deputy Commissioners. On 08.03.2021,
on hearing the learned counsel for the complainants
and the State, this Court passed the following order:
"This contempt proceedings is initiated
by petitioners in W.P.Nos.41934-42007/2017
alleging that there has been willful
disobedience of the order dated 12.02.2020
passed in W.P.Nos.41934-42007/2017
(Annexure-G), order dated 18.02.2020 passed
in W.P.Nos.41934-42007/2017 (Annexure-K),
order dated 06.06.2019 passed in 41934-
42007/2017 (Annexure-E), order dated
10.06.2019 passed in CCC Nos.1971-
2003/2017 (Annexure-D), orders dated
26.02.2020 (Annexure-M), 24.02.2020
(Annexure-J) and 18.09.2017 (Annexure-A)
passed in W.P.Nos. 41934-42007/2017 and
connected matters.
2. We have heard the arguments of Sri
V Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of complainants and
Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for respondent-
State.
3. The reason for this contempt
proceedings can be traced to order dated
18.09.2017 passed in W.P.Nos.41934-
42007/2017 and it reads:
"Issue emergent notice to the
respondents.
Learned AGA is directed to take
notice for all the respondents.
Shri V Lakshminarayana,
Learned senior counsel for the
petitioners on instructions submits
that all these petitioners have worked
more than 9 years and continuing
10th year as on today and are
working as Taluk Mojini Operators in
respective Taluks and Districts. In the
guise of Annexures-AH1 and AH2
dated 06.09.2017 and 07.09.2017
respectively, respondents are
indirectly taking initiation to terminate
the petitioners.
The said submission is placed on
record.
In view of the same the
Respondents Government shall not
terminate the petitioners till next date
of hearing."
(Emphasis supplied by us)
4. A plain reading of the above order
would clearly indicate that State Government
was directed not to terminate the petitioners
till the next date of hearing and petitioners
were said to be working as Taluk Mojini
Operators/Data Entry Operators in respective
Taluks and Districts. Apprehending that they
are likely to be terminated, they have filed
W.P.Nos. 41934-42007/2017 and in the said
writ petitions, aforesaid interim order came to
be passed.
5. It is the contention of Sri V
Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel
appearing for complainants that interim order
of stay was passed on 18.09.2017 at 10.30
a.m. which was forwarded to second
respondent on 20.09.2017 at 12.27 noon and
Deputy Commissioner has immediately
thereafter sent information to the Deputy
Director of Land Records of all the Districts in
the State to de-activate the login numbers
which were assigned to the petitioners, which
was the key necessary for working as
otherwise, they would not be able to work
without login numbers. In other words, it is
contended without login numbers, Data Entry
Operators or Mojini Operators were not able
to access the records through the use of
computers and indirectly petitioners came to
be terminated. Hence, alleging to subvert the
order of stay passed on 18.09.2019 login
number furnished to petitioners was
deactivated and alleging there was willful
disobedience of stay order, contempt petition
came to be initiated in CCC Nos.1971-
2003/2017 and 2157-2173/2017.
6. When the matter came to be listed on
14.02.2018, this court had directed the
petitioners to file affidavit disclosing the
details of login IDs of each of the
complainants and Registry was directed to
list this matter on 20.02.2018, pursuant to
which, affidavits came to be filed and based
on the said affidavits filed by complainants,
an order came to be passed on 22.02.2018
and notice was ordered. He would further
contend that to overcome the violation of
interim order dated 18.09.2017, affidavit of
Sri C.N.Sreedhara, Joint Director of Land
Records in the contempt proceedings on
24.04.2018 contending that there has been
no termination of the services of
complainants. It would be apt and
of the affidavit filed by the Joint Director of
land records. It reads:
"4. I humbly submit that, the
survey has engaged the services of the
complainants nor issued engagement
orders. Hence, the survey department
cannot either terminate or continue the
services of the complainants, it is only
the Sakala Mission of DPAR (AR) (Now
DPAR - e Governance) Department
through Deputy Commissioner of
concerned districts can either
terminate or continue the services of
the complainants. Sakala mission or
Deputy Commissioners have not
terminated the services of the
petitioners. Hence, there is no violation
of the order dated 18.09.2017 or
Hon'ble High Court.
6. I humbly submit that there is
no termination order passed by the
Deputy Commissioners of the
concerned Districts. The Sakala
Mission has come forward to continue
to pay the monthly payments of the
Complainants. The Complainants have
made false claims that, an order has
been issued by the second respondent
to terminate the services of the
Complainants. It is submitted that, the
order dated 06.09.2017 and
07.09.2017 by the
Respondents/Accused No.2 was to
impart training to the Government
Surveyors on mojini software and not
an order to terminate the services of
the Complainants. The authority to
engage or to disengage the services of
the Complainants is with the sakala
commission through the concerned
Deputy Commissioner of concerned
Districts and no termination has been
ordered. Hence, the question of
contempt or disobedience by
Respondents/Accused No.2 to 16 does
not arise. Accordingly, contempt
proceedings initiated against the
Respondent/Accused no.2 To 16 are
prayed to be dropped."
On the basis of aforesaid statement
made, contempt proceedings came to be
dropped on 10.06.2019 by recording as
under:
"4. The learned Additional
Government Advocate submits that in
terms of para 6 of the affidavit, the
salary would be paid as expeditiously
as possible in terms of the Government
Order dated 09.04.2018, within four
weeks from today. The proceedings
are dropped."
7. It would be appropriate to note at this
juncture itself that Government Order bearing
No.CASUE/180/ NASEKHA/2018 dated
09.04.2018 came to be issued agreeing
thereunder that salaries of mojini
operators/data entry operators would be paid
under the head 'Sakala Mission' and would
be borne by the said Department.
8. It is thereafter, an interlocutory
application came to be filed by petitioners in
the pending writ petition Nos. 41934-
42007/2017 seeking for a direction to the
respondents to pay salaries to each of the
applicants in pursuance to the Government
order dated 09.04.2018 and the undertaking
already given in CCC Nos.1971-2003/2017
and connected matters. Said application after
being adjudicated, came to be listed on
18.02.2020 by observing thus:
"5. The reply of the respondents
as aforesaid would be nothing but
contempt and perjury. Hence, the
respondent No.2 is called upon to
show cause as to why contempt and
perjury action cannot be initiated
against the respondents for not
complying with the undertaking given
before the contempt court."
When the matter was listed on
18.02.2020, learned Single Judge held that:
"Ex facie it appears, the
respondents are repeatedly disobeying
the orders of this Court. The
consecutive directions issued by this
Court would evince the same. The
attitude of the respondent No.2 in not
complying with the order of this Court
dated 12.2.2020 is highly deplorable.
However, as a last chance, in the
interest of justice, one more
opportunity is provided to the
respondents."
9. Subsequently, matter was taken up
on 24.02.2020, on which date, two affidavits
of Sri Varaprasada Reddy, Additional Mission
Director, Sakala Mission, Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reform (e-Gov),
Bengaluru and Sri C N Sreedhara, Additional
Director of Land Records (Technical), Office of
the Commissioner, Survey Settlement Land
Records, K.R.Circle, Bengaluru were filed and
taken on record. On 26.02.2020 when the
matter again was listed before the learned
Single Judge, it was adjourned by two weeks
with an observation that said accommodation
is extended to the learned Additional
Advocate General to enable the respondents
to comply with the order dated 06.06.2019
and order dated 10.06.2019 passed in CCC
Nos.1971-2003/2017. Hence, it would be apt
and appropriate to extract the order dated
06.06.2019 passed in the contempt
proceedings, it reads thus:
"For the reasons stated in the
application I.A.2/2018 is allowed.
Petitioner to amend the cause title.
Learned Additional Government
Advocate accepts notice for impleading
respondent. Respondents are directed
to file objections, if any, to I.A.1/2013.
In the meanwhile, concerned
respondent is hereby directed to file a
short affidavit as to whether the order
dated 01.09.2014 passed in
W.P.Nos.30453-30528/2014 has been
implemented or not, on the next date
of hearing."
Order which came to be passed in CCC
Nos.1971-2003/2017 and connected matters
reads thus:
"3. On considering the same, we
do not find any grounds to proceed
further in the matter. Complainants
contention and various other
statements made by them would
necessarily have to be considered by
the learned Single Judge. It may not
be appropriate for the contempt court
to go into these issues.
4. The learned Additional
Government Advocate submits that in
terms of para 6 of the affidavit, the
salary would be paid as expeditiously
as possible in terms of the Government
Order dated 09.04.2018, within four
weeks from today. The proceedings
are dropped."
10. It is an undisputed fact that order
which came to be passed on 18.09.2017 in
W.P.Nos.41934-42007/2017 was till next
date of hearing i.e., till 18.02.2019 and
thereafter said order was not extended.
11. Be that as it may. The affidavits
filed by respondent No.2 and concerned
official of Sakala Commission recorded in the
earlier contempt proceedings was as a result
of Government Order dated 09.04.2018. Said
order would disclose that State has agreed to
pay salary to Mojini Operators/Data Entry
Operators as indicated in the said order.
12. In this background, when the memo
dated 26.02.2021 filed by the State
Government is perused, it would disclose that
order has been passed releasing salary to
Mojini Operators in the 14 districts in a sum
of Rs.1,28,46,780.89. Sri V
Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of complainants has
fairly submitted that insofar as the employees
working at Chitradurga and Bellary districts
are concerned, they have been paid salary for
the period upto 10.06.2019. Sri Dhyan
Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate
General has added that salaries of employees
working in Mandya District, has also been
paid. Except the Government Order dated
24.02.2021, we do not find any material to
arrive at a conclusion that salary as agreed to
under the Government order dated
09.04.2018 having been paid to the
complainants or remitted to the respective
accounts of Mojini Operators/Data Entry
Operators.
13. Though in the affidavit dated
18.01.2021 filed by Sri Patil Yalagouda
Shivanagouda, Commissioner, Department of
Survey Settlement and Land Records, it has
been stated that payment of remuneration
has been made through the agency that has
provided the services of outsourced basis till
13.09.2017 and these persons have not
returned to work or reported to work even on
a single occasion which is seriously disputed
by Sri V Lakshminarayana, learned senior
counsel and there being no material in this
regard available before us to adjudicate upon
this issue except the self serving statement of
the complainants who have asserted that
they have continued to work and disputed by
the State, we desist from scrutinizing the said
contention, particularly when the said issue is
still at large before the learned Single Judge,
where complainants/petitioners are
contending that they have been illegally
terminated with effect from 20.09.2017 by
virtue of withdrawal of the login numbers
which is also disputed by Government. The
fact remains that State has agreed to
pay salary to the complainants under the
Government Order dated 09.04.2018. It
is needless to state that any salary that
is paid to them would be subject to result
of the writ petition particularly in the
background of stand taken by the State
that salary/remuneration could not have
been paid to the persons who have not
worked and it would be open to the
learned Single Judge to examine the said
issue in the pending writ petitions. 14. It
is no doubt true that a memo dated
26.02.2021 has been filed reporting
compliance of Government Order dated
09.04.2018. As to whether order dated
24.02.2021 has crystallized in favour of
the complainants by way of amount
having paid to them or remitted to their
accounts will have to be considered and
for that limited purpose, we direct the
Registry to list this matter on
15.03.2021 and by the said date, the
State shall file an affidavit to establish
that amounts have been paid or remitted
as contended by them in their memo
dated 26.02.2021.
Re-list on 15.03.2021."
(Emphasis supplied)
This Court in terms of the aforesaid orders observed
that any salary that is paid to the petitioners in the
contempt proceedings would be subject to the result of
the writ petitions, particularly in the background of the
stand taken by the State that the salary could not have
been paid to persons who have not worked. The
Division Bench kept open the issue to be decided by this
Court in these petitions. In terms of the afore-quoted
orders, the issue with regard to payment of salary was
also left to the hands of the Court hearing the subject
writ petitions. The contempt case was again listed
before the Court on 24.06.2021. Again alleging
contempt, this Court recorded in terms of the earlier
order dated 08.03.2021 (supra), keeping the contentions
open, dropped the contempt proceedings.
11. According to the learned senior counsel
representing the petitioners, what is recorded on
24.06.2021, was payment of 22 months' salary that is
due and as on date more than 28 months' salary is yet
to be paid. The issue now to be decided is,
Whether the petitioners are entitled to
seek regularization of their services as Mojini
operators?
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were all
appointed through outsource agencies. No norm of
recruitment was followed while engaging the petitioners.
Such engagement cannot be termed as appointment
entitling the petitioners to seek regularization of their
services. It is germane to notice the line of law laid
down by the Apex Court right from the Constitution
Bench judgment in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA
v. UMADEVI1, till the latest judgment rendered in the
case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. ILMO DEVI
AND ANOTHER2, a judgment rendered on 7th October,
2021. The Apex Court in the case of ILMO DEVI has
considered the entire spectrum of law right from the
judgment in the case of UMADEVI and has held as
follows:
"2. The High Court has further directed
that till the exercise, as directed above, is
undertaken, the appellants shall continue the
employees in service with their current status
but to those of them who have completed 20
years as part-time daily wagers shall be
granted "minimum" basic pay of Group 'D'
posts w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and/or the date of
completion of 20 years contractual service,
whichever is later.
(2006) 4 SCC 1
2021 SCC Online SC 899
3. That the respondents herein are/were
working as contingent paid part-time Sweepers
(Safai Karamcharies working for less than five
hours a day) in a Post Office at Sector-14,
Chandigarh. That the respondents approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No.
886/CH/2005 seeking directions to frame a
regularization/absorption policy for regularization
of their service. Alternatively, a direction for grant of
temporary status w.e.f. 19.11.1989. The said O.A.
was opposed by the department. Written statement
was filed stating that the respondents-original
applicants are contingent paid Safaiwalas working
for less than five hours and, therefore, are not
entitled for temporary status. It was further stated
that there is no regular sanctioned post of
Safaiwala in that particular Post Office in
Chandigarh.
4. An O.M. dated 11.12.2006 was issued
by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
& Pensions (DoPT), Government of India by
which regularization of qualified workers
appointed against sanctioned posts in
irregular manner was declared. A
regularization policy was framed considering
the decision of this Court in the case
of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), [(2006) 4 SCC 1. It provided that the Union
of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to
regularize as a one-time measure the services
of such irregularly appointed, qualified
persons, in terms of the statutory requirement
of the Rules for the posts, who have worked
for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts
but not under cover of orders of the courts or
of tribunals. As the respondents - original
applicants were serving as part-time
employees working for five hours a day and
there were no regular sanctioned posts in the
particular Post Office and so they were not
granted the benefit of the said O.M. dated
11.12.2006. By the judgment and order dated
17.01.2007, the learned Tribunal disposed of
the said O.A. rejecting the claim of the
respondents for their regularization. However,
the learned Tribunal observed that since the
Department need the continuous service of
Safaiwalas, they shall advertise this post to
appoint regular Safaiwala through proper
process of selection positively within three
months. The learned Tribunal also further
directed that the respondents herein may also
be considered for such selection after
providing age relaxation to them under the
relevant rules keeping in view that they have
been working for last so many years without
interruption. Learned Tribunal also observed
that till then they are at liberty to allow the
respondents to continue to perform their
duties with the present status (as part-time).
Learned Tribunal also observed that in case a
one-time scheme is formulated by the
Department/Government in exercise of the
directions of this Court in the case
of Umadevi (supra), the respondents' cases
may also be considered for regularization, if
they fulfill the required conditions as
prescribed in the said scheme.
5. xxx
6. That by order dated 06.08.2014, the High
Court directed the appellants to reconsider the
claim of the respondents as per the new policy
dated 30.06.2014. The authorities rejected the
claim by order dated 11.09.2014 for the reasons
that; (i) there are no sanctioned posts and (ii)
employees have not completed 10 years of service
as on 10.04.2006 namely, the date of decision of
this Court in Umadevi (supra).
7. By the impugned common judgment and
order, the High Court has disposed of the aforesaid
writ petitions with the following directions:--
"[22] We, thus, direct the petitioner-
authorities to re-visit the whole issue in its
right perspective and complete the exercise to
re-formulate their policy and take a decision
to sanction the posts in phased manner
within a specified time schedule. Let such a
decision be taken within a period of six
months from the date of receiving a certified
copy of this order.
[23] Till the exercise as directed above,
is undertaken, the respondents shall continue
in service with their current status but those
of them who have completed 20 years as
part-time daily wagers, shall be granted
'minimum' basic pay of Group 'D' post(s)
w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and/or the date of completion
of 20 years contractual service, whichever is
later."
8. xxx
9. xxx
10. xxx
11. xxx
12. xxx
13. xxx
14. xxx
15. xxx
16. xxx
17. xxx
18. xxx
19. xxx
20. Heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties at length.
21. At the outset, it is required to be
noted that the respondents-original applicants
were working as contingent paid part-time
sweepers (Safai Karamcharies working for
less than five hours a day) in a Post Office at
Chandigarh. It is not in dispute and cannot be
disputed that there are no sanctioned posts of
Safaiwalas in the Post Office in which the
respondents were working. There is no
documentary evidence on record to establish and
prove that the respondents were working
continuously. Even otherwise as observed
hereinabove, they were working as contingent paid
part-time sweepers. Even it is not the case on
behalf of the respondents that their appointment
was done after following due procedure of selection
and to that extent, it cannot be said that their
appointments were irregular. As such in the
absence of any sanctioned posts in the Post Office
in which the respondents were working, there was
no question of appointing the respondents after
following due procedure. In light of the above, the
directions issued by the High Court in the
impugned judgment and order are required to be
considered.
22. In the present case, pursuant to the
order passed by the learned Tribunal and the
order passed in the contempt proceedings, the
appellants came out with a regularization
policy dated 30.06.2014. In the said
regularization policy, it has been provided as
under:--
"(i) Regularization of all the Casual
Labourers, who have been irregularly
appointed, but are duly qualified persons
in terms of statutory requirement rules
for the post and was engaged against a
sanctioned post, shall be done if they
have worked for 10 years or more but not
under the covers of orders of courts or
tribunals as on the date of Hon'ble Apex
Court's ibid judgment, i.e., 10.04.2006.
(ii) A temporary contractual, casual
or daily wage worker shall not have a
legal right to be made permanent unless
he/she fulfills the above criteria.
(iii) A Casual Labourer engaged
without following the due process or the
rules relating to appointment and does
not meet the above criteria shall not be
considered for their absorption,
regularization, permanency in the
Department.
(iv) If a Casual Labourer was
engaged in infraction of the rules or if
his engagement is in violation of the
provisions of the Constitution, the said
illegal engagement shall not be
regularized."
23. The aforesaid regularization policy has
been framed considering the decision of this Court
in the case of Umadevi (supra). That thereafter
pursuant to the interim order passed by the High
Court dated 06.08.2014, the appellant authorities
reconsidered the claim of the respondents herein as
per the regularization policy dated 30.06.2014 and
the same came to be rejected vide communication
dated 11.09.2014 mainly on the ground that there
are no sanctioned posts and the employees have
not completed ten years of service as on
10.04.2006.
24. By the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court has directed to reformulate the
regularization policy and to take a decision to
sanction the post in a phased manner. While
issuing the aforesaid directions, the High Court
made certain observations, relevant observations,
which are necessary for the purpose of present
appeals are as under:--
"[8] The respondents in all these cases
have worked for more than 10 to 20 years
as contingent employees and some of them
(like in the lead case) have served for about
30 years. A few of them are obviously nearing
retirement age as prescribed under the
Central/State Service Rules.
[9] It is true that these employees are
working on 'part-time basis' only. The ground
realities of which a Court can take judicial
notice, leave no room to doubt that once the
respondents come to their respective work
place to perform duties, may be for 4 to 5
hours, it is nearly impossible for them to
secure another job for the rest of the day. The
petitioner-authorities cannot be oblivious of
the fact that where supply of manual labour
is more than the demand, the market forces
won't permit the private-respondents to have
the choice of getting another and alternative
employment for the remainder of the day after
they are relieved of their duties by the postal
authorities.
[12] It is no doubt true that a 'part-time'
employee cannot seek parity with a 'full time'
worker but then the petitioner-authorities can
also draw no mileage out of their undue
favour shown to those who are engaged for 7
to 8 hours and total neglect of the others who
are 'part-time' due to 4 to 5 hours
engagement. It appears to us that whatever
benefits authorities decide to confer on the
full-timers, the same can be extended to part-
timers as well, of course, on such additional
and stringent conditions like double the
length of contingent service and/or other
reasonable and fair conditions which the
authorities may deem fit.
[13] While we refrain from
suggesting any policy module as such an
exercise falls within the domain of the
Executive only, the authorities ought to
be cautioned that the policy, so framed,
must reflect the due application of mind
as well as their conscious decision to
reject or accept the claim of any class or
category of contractual employees.
[15] Be that as it may, now the
Department of Postal and Ministry of
Communication and I.T. has issued a
policy circular dated 30.06.2014 for the
welfare of casual labourers. The above-
stated policy is said to have been issued
in compliance to the directions issued
in Uma Devi's case (supra). The salient
feature of the aforesaid policy are to the
following effect.
"(i) Regularization of all the
casual Labourers, who have been
irregularly appointed, but are duly
qualified persons in terms of
statutory recruitment rules for the
post and was engaged against a
sanctioned post, shall be done if they
worked for 10 years or more but not
under the covers of orders of courts
or tribunals as on the date of Hon'ble
Apex Court's ibid judgment i.e.
10.04.2006 (Secretary State of
Karnataka v. Uma Devi in Civil
Appeal No. 3595-3612/1999).
(ii) A Temporary, Contractual,
Casual or Daily wage worker shall
not have a legal right to be made
permanent unless he/she fulfills the
above criteria.
(iii) A casual Labourer engaged
without following the due process or
the rules relating to appointment and
does not meet the above criteria shall
not be considered for their
absorption, regularization,
permanency in the Department.
(iv) If a casual Labourer was
engaged in Infraction of the rules or if
his engagement is in violation of the
provision of the Constitution, the said
illegal engagement shall not be
regularized...."
(emphasis applied in original)
[18] We have given our thoughtful
consideration to both the reasons
assigned by the petitioner-authorities,
who have further stated that as of now,
fresh engagements on contingent or daily
wage basis have been completely
stopped. If that is so, it can be safely
inferred that only a small group of daily
wage part-time employees engaged before
10.04.2006 are still working. If their
eligibility of 10 years daily wage service is
determined in the year 2014-15 on the basis
of cut off date of 10.04.2006, such a policy
would be an exercise in futility. The
petitioners themselves have taken more than
8 years in giving effect to one of the directions
in Uma Devi's case (supra), hence, they
cannot reject the claim of daily-wage
employees with an ante-date cut off date as
the compliance of such an eligibility condition
is nearly impossible. This would render the
policy totally ineffective and a brutum fulmen
without percolating even a drop of benefit to
those for whom it has been formulated.
[20] Surely, the respondents cannot
be made regular in the absence of
sanctioned posts, but then what is the
public purpose sought to be achieved
through the policy dated 30.06.2014?
The Executive who has authored the
policy is also competent to create or
sanction the posts. Depending upon the
total expenditure now being incurred on
the retention of respondents, we have no
reason to doubt that the petitioners can
rationalize their resources and sanction
some regular posts every year so that the
respondents can be adjusted on regular
basis without any unbearable additional
financial burden on the Department, but
before they leave the department on
attaining the age of superannuation.
[21] The petitioners might have incurred
huge expenditure in defending multiple
litigation initiated by contractual employees
who are now a diminishing cadre. This is for
the petitioners to take a pragmatic view and
divert this unproductive expenditure towards
sanctioning the posts in a phased manner for
adjusting the respondents."
25. xxx
26. Even the regularization policy to
regularize the services of the employees
working on temporary status and/or casual
labourers is a policy decision and in judicial
review the Court cannot issue Mandamus
and/or issue mandatory directions to do so. In
the case of R.S. Bhonde (supra), it is observed
and held by this Court that the status of
permanency cannot be granted when there is
no post. It is further observed that mere
continuance every year of seasonal work
during the period when work was available
does not constitute a permanent status unless
there exists a post and regularization is done.
27. xxx
28. Thus, as per the law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid decisions part-time
employees are not entitled to seek
regularization as they are not working
against any sanctioned post and there cannot
be any permanent continuance of part-time
temporary employees as held. Part-time
temporary employees in a Government run
institution cannot claim parity in salary with
regular employees of the Government on the
principle of equal pay for equal work.
29. Applying the law laid down by this
court in the aforesaid decisions, the directions
issued by the High Court in the impugned
judgment and order, more particularly,
directions in paragraphs 22 and 23 are
unsustainable and beyond the power of the
judicial review of the High Court in exercise of
the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Even otherwise, it is required to
be noted that in the present case, the Union of
India/Department subsequently came out with
a regularization policy dated 30.06.2014,
which is absolutely in consonance with the
law laid down by this Court in the case
of Umadevi (supra), which does not apply to
the part-time workers who do not work on the
sanctioned post. As per the settled preposition
of law, the regularization can be only as per
the regularization policy declared by the
State/Government and nobody can claim the
regularization as a matter of right dehors the
regularization policy. Therefore, in absence of
any sanctioned post and considering the fact
that the respondents were serving as a
contingent paid part-time Safai
Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not
entitled for the benefit of regularization under
the regularization policy dated 30.06.2014.
30. Though, we are of the opinion that
even the direction contained in paragraph 23
for granting minimum basic pay of Group 'D'
posts from a particular date to those, who
have completed 20 years of part-time daily
wage service also is unsustainable as the part-
time wagers, who are working for four to five
hours a day and cannot claim the parity with
other Group 'D' posts. However, in view of the
order passed by this Court dated 22.07.2016
while issuing notice in the present appeals, we
are not quashing and setting aside the
directions contained in paragraph 23 in the
impugned judgment and order so far as the
respondents' employees are concerned."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the latest judgment of the Apex Court,
which was considering the cases of contractual
employees, part-time employees and casual labourers to
be entitled for regularization holds that the petitioners
therein did not have any right to seek regularization in
the light of several judgments rendered by the Apex
Court. Merely because the petitioners have rendered 8
to 9 years or even 10 years of service as Mojini
Operators having been engaged through outsource
agencies for a particular purpose, the claim for
regularization of their services is not acceptable. As
held by the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra),
which has been consistently followed and reiterated by
Benches of lesser strength, has held that only irregular
appointments can be regularised. The engagement of
services of petitioners, by no stretch of imagination can
be construed to be an irregular appointments; not an
iota of norm is followed while engaging these petitioners,
who were admittedly engaged through outsource
agencies. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners for
regularization of their services would not hold water and
deserves to be repelled and is accordingly, rejected.
13. Rejection of the claim of the regularisation of
the petitioners in these cases would not however
preclude the State Government in formulating a policy
either to continue them or consider their cases for
regularisation in the light of the afore-narrated facts
and analysis of the submissions. There are several
other grievances submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel with regard to non-payment of salary to several
other persons who had filed contempt
petitions/applications. If salary is not paid to any of the
employees for having worked, it is open for those
employees to submit representations to the State
Government seeking release of such unpaid salary.
This Court has no reason to disbelieve that the demand
of the petitioners for payment of salary for the period
that they have worked would not be granted to them.
14. Insofar as the claim of the State that it should
be permitted to recover amounts so paid on the strength
of interim orders or in the teeth of the contempt in
terms of the directions of the Division Bench permitting
the State to urge the said point before this Court, needs
consideration. This Court granted an interim order not
to terminate the services of the petitioners. It is the
case of the State that by the time the interim order was
granted, the petitioners were not even working as Mojini
Operators in the places they were engaged. Since
contempt petitions were filed on the basis that
termination had been stayed and no salary was paid,
huge amounts of salary to all these petitioners was
released again, pursuant to contempt proceedings. The
payments have been made to the petitioners on the
strength of the interim order and in the teeth of
contempt proceedings, but nonetheless have been paid
pursuant to orders passed by this Court either on the
basis of interim order in these proceedings or direction
to pay salary in the contempt proceedings. Therefore,
the petitioners should not be left worse of for having
approached this Court in these petitions. If the State is
permitted to recover the amount that is paid during the
pendency of these proceedings, it would amount to
orders of this Court prejudicing the petitioners and
would run counter to the well recognized principle of
"actus curiae neminem gravabit - Act of Court shall
prejudice no man". Therefore, the State is precluded
from initiating any recovery of any amount that is paid
during the pendency of these proceedings.
15. While declining to entertain the petitions
seeking regularization of the services of the petitioners,
with the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nvj
CT:MJ
