Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Smt Someshwari C N on 13 June, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.987 OF 2021 (S-REG)
IN
W.P.No.23897 OF 2018 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VANI H, AGA)
AND:
1. SMT SOMESHWARI C N
W/O BHASKAR H.N.,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
TYPIST
HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, B.M.ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201
2. SRI G.N.ANAND
S/O LATE NANJAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT
2
AUTHORITY, B.M.ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201
3. SRI P.C.SHIVASHANKAR
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
BLUE PRINTER,
HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, B.M.ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201
4. SRI H.G.LOKESH
S/O LATE H.B.GUNDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
DRIVER,
HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, B.M.ROAD,
HASSAN - 573201
5. THE COMMISSIONER
HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, B.M.ROAD
HASSAN - 573 201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WP NO.23897/2018, AS ILLEGAL; b) ISSUE
ANY OTHER ORDERS/DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Smt. Vani H., learned AGA for the appellant.
Sri. S.B. Mukkanappa, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against the
order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Single
Judge in the writ petition preferred by the respondents,
the impugned endorsement dated 12.03.2018 rejecting
the claim of the respondents seeking regularisation of
their services have been quashed and appellant has
been directed to reconsider the cases of the respondents
bearing in mind the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in 'SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS VS UMADEVI AND OTHERS',
(2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as decision 'STATE OF
KARNATAKA & OTHERS VS M.L. KESARI &
OTHERS', (2010) 9 SCC 247.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that respondent No.1 claims to have
been appointed on the post of typist in the year 1992
against the clear vacancy. It is the case of respondent
No.1 that she has continued in service without any
intervention of any order passed by any Court.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were appointed on 02.05.1996
and 01.02.1996 respectively. By an order dated
17.09.1998, the services of respondent Nos.2 and 3
were terminated. Thereupon, they raised an industrial
dispute and award dated 29.12.2005 was passed in
favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 by which their
services were directed to be reinstated. It is their case
that in pursuance of the award, the services of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 were reinstated on 20.01.2006
and since then, they were in service.
3. Respondent No.4 was deputed to services on
10.05.1985 and his service was arbitrarily terminated by
an order dated 01.06.1990. Thereupon, respondent No.4
raised an industrial dispute, which was rejected by an
award dated 20.11.2000. The award passed by the
labour Court was subject matter of challenge in writ
petition W.P.No.20111/2001 which was allowed by a
bench of this Court in order dated 28.02.2016. It is the
case of respondent No.4 that since 28.02.2016,
respondent No.4 is in service.
4. It appears that the claim of the respondents
seeking regularisation of their services was rejected by
an order dated 12.03.2018. The aforesaid order was
challenged by respondent in writ petition. The learned
Single Judge vide order dated 11.12.2020 has partly
allowed the writ petition and has directed the appellant
herein to reconsider the case of the respondents seeking
regularisation in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of 'UMADEVI' and
'M.L. KESARI' (supra). In the aforesaid factual
background, the instant appeal has been filed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate
submitted that none of the respondents have completed
continuous period of ten years of service as on
10.04.2006 without intervention of any Court or
Tribunal. Therefore, their cases do not deserve
acceptance in the light of the directions contained in
paragraph No.53 in the judgment of 'UMADEVI'
(supra).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 has
rendered more than 10 years of service without
intervention of the Court. It is also pointed out that
since the services of the remaining respondents were
reinstated by the Courts, therefore, they would be
deemed to the continuous service for the purpose of
consideration of their cases for reinstate.
7. We have considered the submissions made
by the learned counsel on both the sides. On perusal of
the impugned endorsement dated 12.03.2018, it is
evident that appellants have neither considered the
nature of the appointment of the respondents i.e.,
whether it is irregular or illegal nor the period of the
services rendered by them as on the date of the
consideration of their claim. The impugned endorsement
has been passed merely on the ground that the
respondents were engaged on contract basis and
thereafter by virtue of the orders passed by the Court
have been in continuous services. The effect of the
orders by which the services of the respondents were
reinstated in the services has also not been considered.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not
find any grounds to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge. However, it is clarified that
this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the claim of the respondents in seeking regularisation.
The appellant shall complete the aforesaid exercise by a
speaking order within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of copy of the order by taking into
account the nature of the appointment of the
respondents as well as the period of the services
rendered by them in accordance with law.
9. Needless to state that the appellant shall also
specify the period of services rendered by the
respondents with intervention of any Court/Tribunal
order as well as the period of services rendered by the
respondents without intervention of any Court/Tribunal
order.
10. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge is modified. Accordingly,
appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mds.
