Smt.Thanuja vs Smt. Divya. R
2022 Latest Caselaw 12721 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

            C. C. C. NO.699 OF 2022 (CIVIL)

 BETWEEN:

 SMT.THANUJA
 D/O. LATE YALAKKAYYA,
 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
 R/AT NO. 3545, 2ND CROSS,
 TILAK NAGAR,
 MYSURU-570 021.
                                      ...COMPLAINANT
 (BY SRI. M S BHAGAWAT, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI. M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE)

 AND:

 SMT. DIVYA. R
 SECRETARY,
 THE COMMON CADRE COMMITTEE,
 FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE
 AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS,
 KARNATAKA STATE,
 ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD,
 CHAMARAJPET,
 BENGALURU-560018.
                                         ....ACCUSED
 (BY SRI. S.N. MURTHY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI. P. ANAND, ADVOCATE)
                                    2




     THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND
PUNISH HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR HER
DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE TO THE FINAL ORDER OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 16.02.2022 IN WP NO.8157/2018
(S-RES).

     THIS CCC COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The complainant is before this Court on a

grievance that the order dated 16.2.2022 passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.8157/2018

is not duly complied with by the respondent-accused.

2. It is submitted before this Court that the

complainant, who was the petitioner before this Court in

W.P.No.8157/2018, approached this Court on a

grievance of denial of her regularisation on the

condition that she failed to complete 10 (ten) years of

regular service.

3. Learned senior counsel for the complainant

submitted that the said order of the respondent was

under challenge in the petition and vide order dated

16.2.2022, the order impugned in W.P.No.8157/2018

was quashed. Respondent No.1 therein was permitted

to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation

keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the cases of Umadevi and Sheo Narain

Nagar within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

4. Learned senior counsel for the complainant

invited our attention to the order of this Court dated

23.9.2022 to submit before this Court that subsequent

to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court, the respondent-accused again vide order dated

6.6.2022 rejected the case of the petitioner for

regularisation and the ground taken was that the

petitioner failed to complete ten years of service.

5. Learned senior counsel for the

complainant/petitioner vehemently submitted that the

issue of alleged non-completion of 10 years of service

was already considered by the learned Single Judge and

the accused reiterated the same issue as a justification

for the subsequent order dated 6.6.2022.

6. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing

for the respondent-accused submitted that in the order

dated 6.6.2022, non-completion of 10 years service is

one of the grounds and there are certain other grounds

also for refusal of the claim for regularisation. The

learned senior counsel for the respondent - accused

then submitted before this Court that a Special

Committee was constituted for considering the claim of

the employee. The Committee, pursuant to the order of

this Court dated 16.2.2022, re-looked and re-

considered the case of the petitioner.

7. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-

accused, by inviting our attention, firstly submitted

that, as now the endorsement order dated 6.6.2022 is

passed by the accused, there is a clear compliance of

the order of this Court. Learned counsel further

submits that after the constitution of the Common

Cadre Committee, directions were issued to withdraw

the appointments and in spite of such directions, the

Primary Co-operative and Agricultural and Rural

Development Bank issued certain orders. The learned

counsel then invited our attention to the other part of

the order dated 6.6.2022. The Judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and

Others as well as the order in the case of M.L. Kesari

are referred to. The pre-requisites as referred in the

case of M L Kesari are reiterated viz., the appointment

should not be illegal; there should be sanctioned posts;

required educational qualification for the posts; should

not work on stay order of any Court. It is then stated

in the order that on 9.8.1997, when the complainant-

petitioner was appointed, there was no sanctioned post

of 'Second Division Assistant'. Thus, on two counts the

order dated 6.6.2022 is passed. Therefore, even

though this Court was pleased to observe the first part

of the order dated 6.6.2022 i.e. in respect of the non

completion of 10 years, the other ground in the order

dated 6.6.2022 is in respect of the pre-requisites for

regularisation and i.e. the availability of sanctioned post

and as there was no sanctioned post when the

complainant-petitioner was appointed, the claim for

regularisation is rejected.

8. It may not be again out of place to refer to the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2022. In

paragraph (10) of the order, the learned Single Judge

referred to the order of the Division Bench of this Court

i.e. W.A.No.1185/2021 and then further referred to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Umadevi. It was further observed by the learned Single

Judge that it is very clear from the above judgment

that, what is required for regularisation of the persons

are :

1) They are appointed against a sanction post ;

2) Appointed after following due procedure of law;

3) Who have completed ten years of service

Then, the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe

that the petitioner has completed her service as a daily

wage employee for more than ten years. Now, even

before the learned Single Judge, only one issue fell for

consideration viz. the completion of ten years of service

by the petitioner.

9. At the cost of repetition, we state that the

learned Single Judge himself referred to three pre-

requisites and the completion of ten years is one of the

three pre-requisite. As the other pre-requisites are,

appointment of a person against a sanctioned post and

the appointment after following due procedure of law.

10. Interestingly enough, perusal of the

memorandum of writ petition filed by the complainant-

petitioner show that the petitioner no where submitted

in his memorandum that, she was appointed against a

sanctioned post or her appointment was made by

following due procedure.

11. The thrust of submission and contention of the

complainant-petitioner before the learned Single Judge

was only of completing continuous service of 10 years

and more. Considering these aspects we are of the

view that as the order of this Court is duly complied

with, the grievance raised in the contempt/complaint no

more survives. If the petitioner-complainant has any

grievance against the order dated 6.6.2022, she may

avail appropriate remedies or appropriate steps, if so

advised, to challenge the said order.

In view of the above discussion, the Contempt

Petition is dropped and notice is discharged.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE rs