The Joint Director Of Agriculture vs Smt Shankremma And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 36 Kant

                                   1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                             PRESENT

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

           WRIT APPEAL NO.200005/2021 (S-REG)

BETWEEN:
1.     The Joint Director of Agriculture
       Office of Joint Director of Agriculture
       Kalaburagi - 585 102

2.     The Agriculture Officer
       Agriculture Training Centre
       Kotnoor (D), Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 102.
       (Since defunct and closed in the year 2003)
                                                        ... ...Appellants
(By Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, HCGP)

AND:
1.     Smt. Shankremma W/o Sangappa
       Aged about 67 years, Occ: Cook
       R/o C/o Agriculture Training Office
       Agriculture Teaching Centre, Kotnoor (D)
       Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 103
2.     Ratnamma W/o Revansiddappa Dwar
       Aged about 59 years, Occ: Cook
       R/o C/o Agriculture Training Office,
       Agriculture Teaching Centre, Kotnoor (D)
       Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 103
                                                   ..... Respondents
(By Sri N.S. Deshpande, Advocate)
                                 2



      This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order
of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.83563-
83564/2012, dated 06.03.2020.

      This appeal coming on for admission               this   day,
K.S. Hemalekha J, delivered the following:

                          JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka

High Court Act is filed by the Joint Director of Agriculture,

Office of Joint Director of Agriculture, Kalaburagi and the

Agriculture Officer, Agriculture Training Centre, Kotnoor-D, Tq.

& Dist. Kalaburagi, who were respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Writ

Petition Nos.83563-564/2012, assailing the impugned order

dated 06.03.2020.

2. The respondents herein filed a writ of mandamus,

seeking direction for regularization of their services with

retrospective date of their appointments along with all

consequential benefits including that of the continuity of

service, full back wages etc.

3. The learned Single Judge by his order dated

06.03.2020 was pleased to allow the petition filed by the

petitioners and granted regularization of petitioners' services

with retrospective effect from the date they have completed

their ten years of service and also granted consequential

benefits as are permissible in law. Being aggrieved by the

same, the present writ appeal is filed.

4. Heard Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and

Sri N.S. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The writ petitioners were engaged on daily wage

basis as cooks in the Agriculture Training Centre under the

present appellants and they had worked continuously for more

than a quarter century. It was the contention of the petitioners

that they worked satisfactorily and without any complaint and

in spite of their request for regularization of their services, it

has been rejected. The conduct of the petitioners is similar to

that of the regular employees and the petitioners were allowed

to work for more than two and half decades and sought to

establish that the requirement of their service is on permanent

basis.

6. The petitioners in the earlier round appears to

have been illegally retrenched and they raised a dispute and

the said dispute was allowed by the Labour Court vide order

dated 15.10.1992 and the petitioners were reinstated and their

services were continued. It could also be seen from the

records that the petitioners were not paid minimum wages as

per the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the petitioners

aggrieved by the non-payment of minimum wages had

approached the authority and the authorities vide order dated

04.04.2006 had ordered for payment of wages in accordance

with the Payment of Wages Act.

7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were

appointed on merits and have served as cooks honestly

without any adverse remark in their 27 years of service and

the service of the petitioners was uninterrupted. The order of

denial of benefit of regularization by the Government is

discriminatory and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge,

considering and deviating from the traditional approach has

held that the petitioners fought the legal battle before the

Labour Court and before the authority seeking for minimum

wages and also looking into the facts and circumstance has

held that the petitioners are entitled for grant of regularization

with retrospective effect.

8. Keeping in view Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the

Constitution of India and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 in Umadevi's case, we are

of the considered view that the order passed by the learned

Single Judge does not call for any interference by this Court

and the present appeal filed by the appellants is devoid of

merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE LG