Girish S/O Tirumal Rao And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 598 Kant

                            1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH
       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
              W.P.No.201503/2021 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:

01.    GIRISH S/O TIRUMAL RAO
       AGE: 45 YEARS OCC: WORKING AS
       SDC AT CHITTAPUR TMC
       TQ: CHITTAPUR
       DIST: KALABURAGI-585 211.

02.    MALLIKARJUN S/O SABANNA
       AGE: 43 YEARS OCC: WORKING AS
       BILL COLLECTOR AT CHITTAPUR TMC
       TQ: CHITTAPUR
       DIST: KALABURAGI-585 211.       .... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. GEETA SAJJANSHETTY, ADVOCATE)


AND:


01.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
       VIDHAN SOUDHA
       AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       VBENGALURU-560 001.

02.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
       #305, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE-560 001.
                                2




03.     DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
        9TH FLOOR, V.V.TOWERS
        DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
        BANGALORE-560 001.

04.     DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
        KALABURAGI DISTRICT
        KALABURAGI-585 101.

05.     PROJECT DIRECTOR
        KALABURAGI DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
        (DUDC)
        KALABURAGI-585 101.
06.     CHIEF OFFICER
        TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
        CHITTAPUR TALUKA
        DIST: KALABURAGI-585 211.          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5
SRI. ABDUL MUQHTADIR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
PROCEEDINGS         DATED   27.02.2017    STATE     COMMITTEE
PROCEEDINGS AT ANNEXURE-U PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
WITH REGARD TO PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2, B) ISSUE A WRIT
OF      MANDAMUS      DIRECTING     THE   RESPONDENTS        TO
REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2
BY MAKING THEM PERMANENT ON AND FROM 30.03.2006, C)
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO    GRANT   ALL    CONSEQUENTIAL    SERVICE     BENEFITS   OF
REGULARIZATION ON AND FROM DATE OF 30.03.2006 AND
ETC.,
        THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
- B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                  3




                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

02. This petition is filed questioning the Annexure -

U the report dated 27.02.2017 submitted by the State

Committee constituted for the purpose of regularization of

the temporary employees. The petition is filed questioning

said report in so far as rejection of the petitioners' claim

for regularization of their service.

03. It is the case of the petitioners that they are

appointed by Wadi Gram Panchayat vide appointment

letter dated 30.03.1996 as second division clerk and bill

collector respectively. Both the petitioners claimed that

they have completed their SSLC at the time of their

appointment. It is further stated that on 25.05.1996 the

Gram Panchayat passed a resolution by confirming the

appointment of petitioner No.1 and on 30.10.1996

confirmed the appointment of petitioner No.2.

04. It is further case of the petitioners that on

25.07.2002 the Wadi Gram Panchayat was converted and

upgraded as Town Municipal Corporation. The services of

both the petitioners were transferred and continued from

the Gram Panchayat to Wadi TMC.

05. It is further stated that on 14.07.2010 the

petitioner No.1 was transferred from Wadi TMC to Afzalpur

Town Panchayat and the petitioner No.2 was transferred

from Wadi TMC to Chittapur.

06. It is further case of the petitioners that based

on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs.

Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, a

committee was constituted to examine the cases for

regularization of temporary employees.

07. It is further stated that on 20.11.2014 all the

Chief Officers of the TMC were asked to implement the

provision of Karnataka Daily Wage Employee Welfare Act,

2012 and prepare list of eligible temporary employees

whose services could be regularised. Accordingly, the

concerned officers have prepared the list and the names of

both the petitioners are mentioned in the said list, as

eligible for regularisation in terms of qualification

prescribed in Umadevi's case.

08. It is further stated that on 28.01.2016, the

petitioners' names were recommended for regularization

by the concerned TMC officers and recommendation was

submitted to the Project Director of the District Urban

Development Cell (DUDC). On 23.02.2016 on

consideration of the documents submitted by the Chief

Officer of the TMC along with recommendation by the

Project Director of the DUDC, the names of the petitioners

were further forwarded to the State Committee with a

recommendation to regularise the services of the

petitioners.

09. However, on 27.02.2017, the respondents

have passed impugned order rejecting the names of the

petitioners for regularization of their services, on the

ground that the petitioners are not eligible on the premise

that they are not appointed against the sanctioned post.

This order is called in question.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that petitioners were appointed on 30.03.1996 and

continued their services till 30.06.2006. By the time

judgment in the case of Umadevi was delivered, they had

completed 10 years of service. The 10 years of service was

without any aid of the Court order. The learned counsel for

the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners

had necessary qualification for the post in which they were

working as temporary employees and it was against

sanctioned vacant posts. It is further submitted that the

petitioners are eligible in terms of the guidelines issued by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi.

11. It is further contended that Annexure-R is

report submitted by the Project Director of the District

Urban Development Cell (DUDC). The details relating to

the petitioners eligibility and qualification are at Sl.Nos.1

and 2 and in the said chart at Annexure-R at column No.5

it is clearly indicated that the petitioners were appointed

against sanctioned vacant post.

12. This Court by an order dated 04.01.2023,

directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the

documents to show whether the post in which the

petitioners were working are sanctioned posts.

13. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court,

the learned Government Advocate has filed a memo with

two documents to show that the posts in which the

petitioners were working are sanctioned posts. As could be

seen from the said documents, it is apparent that 03 bill

collector's posts were sanctioned and 02 posts were filled

up and 01 post of bill collector remained vacant. As far as

clerk is concerned, 01 post was sanctioned and same was

not filled and remained vacant.

14. From the records placed before the Court, this

Court is of the view that the impugned Annexure-U in so

far as rejection the claim of the petitioners on the premise

that the petitioners were not appointed as against the

sanctioned vacant post, is untenable. In addition to that it

is also noticed that in terms of impugned Annexure-U the

regularization committee has also taken a view that the

petitioners are not paid full salary and there are no

documents relating to the payment of salary. It is to be

noticed that this is not criterion fixed in Umadevi's case.

In terms of the guidelines in Umadevi's case what is

required to be considered is whether the petitioners were

working as against the sanctioned vacant post and

whether the petitioners continued for 10 years in service

without intervention of any Court order and whether

petitioners have necessary qualifications to apply for the

said posts. Since, the petitioners have fulfilled all the 03

criteria enumerated in the aforementioned judgment; this

Court is of the view that the writ petition is to be allowed.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

16. Annexure-U insofar as rejecting the claim of

the petitioners No.1 and 2, is quashed and direction is

issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to regularise the

service of the petitioners No.1 and 2.

17. It is noticed that the petitioners No.1 and 2

have completed 10 years on 30.03.2006. The petitioners

are entitled to the consequential benefits with effect from

30.03.2006.

18. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by

the respondents No.1 to 3 within a period of 04 months

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order,

failing which the concerned authority responsible for the

delay, will have to pay interest on the service benefits

payable to be petitioners.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KJJ