V Markandaiah vs The Divisional Controller
2022 Latest Caselaw 5285 Kant

                           -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

       WRIT APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2022 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:
V. MARKANDAIAH
S/O VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O MARKANADAPURA
VOKKALERI POST
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYASIMHA REDDY A/W SRI. MOHANA .C.
ADVOCATE)


AND:

1 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
    KSRTC, BENGALURU
    CENTRAL DIVISION
    K H ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR
    BENGALURU - 560 027

2 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
    KOLAR DIVISION
    KOLAR - 563 101

                                         ... RESPONDENTS
                           ---

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.07.2021 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 62075/2016, AND GRANT
RELIEFS AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE W.P.NO. 62075/2016 BY
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
AND ETC.
                                  -2-




      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

In view of the order passed by the Apex Court

dated 10.01.2022 in Misc.No.21/2022 filed in Suo Motu Writ

Petition (c) No.3/2020, the delay in filing of the appeal

stands condoned.

2. Heard.

3. This intra-Court appeal has been filed

challenging the judgment and order dated 14.07.2021

passed in Writ Petition No.62075/2016 whereby, the writ

petition preferred by the appellant/petitioner has been

dismissed holding that the petition has been filed with

inordinate delay and laches which has not been explained in

the writ petition.

      4.    As       per   the      facts   of   the    case,    the

appellant/petitioner       was   appointed       as    Badali/casual

Conductor in the year 1989. The appellant/petitioner,

feeling discriminated, had made a representation to treat

him as a regular Conductor and to place him on probation

from the initial date of appointment i.e., 14.12.1989. The

representation of the appellant/petitioner remained pending

and as such, finally, the appellant/petitioner filed the writ

petition in 2016 seeking directions to the respondents to

modify the impugned order of probation issued to him vide

order dated 25.02.2000 and to place him on probation soon

after completion of eight days' training as probation vide

Annexure-B. It was also prayed that a direction be issued to

the respondents to bring the appellant/petitioner on time

scale of pay soon after completion of 180 days of

Badali/temporary service in terms of Clause 4 of the

Industrial Truce Agreement of 1978 and absorb his services

against the clear vacancy and determine his seniority in the

cadre of Conductors and grant other consequential benefits

on such absorption into service.

5. The learned Single Judge, relying on the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu

and Kashmir Vs. R.K.Zalpuri and others1, has come to

the conclusion that the writ petition preferred by the

appellant/petitioner deserved to be dismissed on the

ground of delay and laches.

AIR 2016 SC 3006

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner

submits that since the appellant/petitioner had prayed for a

direction to treat his probation from the initial date of

appointment and accordingly pay the salary in the time

scale of pay soon after completion of 180 days of

Badali/temporary service, as such, it was continuation of

cause of action and in view of the Apex Court's decision in

the case of M.R.Gupta Vs. Union of India and others 2,

the writ petition could not have been dismissed on the

ground of laches.

7. We have considered the submissions of the

learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the

record. The copy of the memorandum of writ petition filed

by the appellant/petitioner is also on record.

8. The perusal of the memorandum of writ petition

clearly indicates that the appellant/petitioner has not

explained the delay in approaching the Court. The judgment

of the Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta (supra) relates

to the grievance of the delinquent employee regarding

wrong fixation of pay which, according to him, was not as

per the rules. The wrong fixation of pay no doubt is a

(1995) 5 SCC 628

continuous cause of action. In the present case, the

appellant/petitioner was initially appointed on casual basis.

The appellant/petitioner has been subsequently given

regular appointment and accordingly was issued the order

dated 25.02.2000 putting him on probation for two years

from the date of the order. The appellant/petitioner had

claimed the regular appointment from the initial date of

appointment i.e., 14.12.1989 and accordingly, sought a

direction to treat his probation from the date of his initial

appointment and to modify the probation order dated

25.02.2000. He had also prayed for proper pay fixation and

arrears of difference of wages.

9. We are of the considered view that the

judgment relied by learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner does not in any manner support the

case of the appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner

cannot get the benefit of the law laid down by the Apex

Court in the case of M.R.Gupta (supra).

10. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner has not

explained the reasons for approaching the Court after

considerable delay of more than 16 years. We do not find

any reason to disagree with the conclusion drawn by the

learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition.

11. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KPS