Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Forest Development ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.611/2021(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
"VANA VIKASA", 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI K DINESH KUMAR
S/O LATE VEERAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
PLANTATION WATCHER
KONNAJE UNIT, SUBRAMANYA
RUBBER DIVISION, KARNATAKA
2
FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
KADABA, SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD., KULASHEKAR
MANGALURU - 575 005.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.,
SUBRAMANYA RUBBER DIVISION
CHIKKAMUDNOOR POST
PUTTUR - 574 203. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI M.S. BHAGWAT, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI SATISH K, ADV., FOR R-2;
V/O DATED 31.01.2022 NOTICE TO R-3 & R-4
ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15.02.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.56526/2016 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order
dated 15.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in W.P.No.56526/2016.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
also perused the material on record.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the
records are, respondent no.2 herein was appointed as a
Plantation Watcher in the appellant-Corporation on
01.11.1988. The appellant-Corporation, thereafter, had
undertaken the process of regularization of its employees
and while sending the names for regularization to the
Government, the Corporation appears to have
inadvertently omitted the name of respondent no.2 to be
sent as Plantation Watcher. Therefore, a communication
dated 23.07.2013 was issued, wherein it was observed
that the name of respondent no.2 was left out while
recommending the other eligible employees to be
considered for regularization in the cadre of Plantation
Watchers. Subsequently, a notification dated 09.07.2014
was issued by the competent authority correcting the
date of entry of service of respondent no.2 as Plantation
Watcher with effect from the date of his appointment i.e.,
01.11.1988. However, the appellant-Corporation had not
conferred the benefit to respondent no.2, and therefore,
he had approached this Court in W.P.No.35859/2015 and
this Court had allowed the said writ petition in part and
held that respondent no.2 shall be entitled to the benefits
attached to the post of Plantation Watcher until such time
action in accordance with law is taken by the respondents
to correct the alleged mistake said to have been
committed in recommending the case of the respondent
no.2 for the post of Plantation Watcher. Thereafter, an
order dated 13.10.2016 was passed withdrawing the
earlier orders which referred to respondent no.2 as
Plantation Watcher with effect from 01.11.1988. The said
order was challenged by respondent no.2 herein before
this Court in W.P.No.56526/2016 and the learned Single
Judge of this Court has allowed the said writ petition.
Being aggrieved by the same, respondent no.1 in the writ
petition has preferred this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
respondent no.2 was not appointed as a daily wage
employee, but he was appointed as a general worker. He
submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to
appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in
allowing the writ petition. He submits that respondent
no.2 is trying to take undue advantage of the mistake
committed by the appellant in recommending his name
for regularization and the said bona fide mistake
committed has been now corrected by issuing the order
dated 13.10.2016. He also submits that there is no order
of appointment which would go to show that respondent
no.2 was appointed as Plantation Watcher, and therefore,
the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the
writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 have argued in support of the order
impugned and prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. The material on record would go to show that
prior to issuing of the communication dated 23.07.2013,
wherein it was observed that the name of respondent
no.2 was inadvertently left out in the list of employees
whose names were recommended for regularization, the
appellant-Corporation in several communications have
referred to respondent no.2 as Plantation Watcher. The
Corporation on 17.05.2008 had transferred respondent
no.2 from one unit of its to another, referring him to a
daily wage employee and in the course of the said order,
respondent no.2 is also described as Plantation Watcher.
In the communication dated 19.05.2008, the competent
authority has referred to respondent no.2 as Plantation
Watcher and a daily wage employee. Subsequently, on
09.07.2014, the competent authority has issued a
communication correcting the date of entry of the service
of respondent no.2 as Plantation Watcher and the
notification also indicated that respondent no.2 had
already put in 24 years 9 months of service. In effect,
respondent no.2 is considered as a Plantation Watcher
right from the date of his appointment i.e., 01.11.1988.
7. By issuing the order dated 13.10.2016, the
earlier orders which described/referred respondent no.2
as Plantation Watcher was directed to be withdrawn with
effect from 01.11.1988. The learned Single Judge taking
into consideration several communications and orders
which referred/described respondent no.2 as a daily
wage employee and plantation watcher, has quashed the
order dated 13.10.2016 and has directed the appellant-
Corporation to consider the regularization of the service
of respondent no.2 in the cadre of plantation watcher
from the date on which his cadre is regularized. The
learned Single Judge has further quashed the order
directing recovery of excess salary paid to respondent
no.2. We find no illegality or irregularity in the said order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. The contention of the appellant that respondent
no.2 was not appointed as a daily wage employee, but he
was appointed as a general worker deserves to be
rejected for the simple reason that the said submission is
contrary to the order dated 13.10.2016 under which
respondent no.2 was brought under the provisions of
Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012.
Under the circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
SD/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
JUDGE
KK
