Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Ganesh Rao on 1 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB
WP No. 4002 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 4002 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HORTICULTURE AND SERICULTURE
DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
FOR SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
AND DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE
DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE
BENGALURU
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)
Digitally signed by
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
SRI GANESH RAO
S/O LATE VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D GROUP EMPLOYEE
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO.1, DIVISION (VIBHAGA)
SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT
RESHME BHAVANA, OKALIPURAM
R/O. NO. 6-9(1), DEPARTMENT QUARTERS
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB
WP No. 4002 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
18.05.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION
No.4510/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed by the State challenging an order
dated 18.05.2021 of the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter, referred to as 'Tribunal' for
NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB
short) by which an application filed by the private respondent
herein has been allowed.
2. The private respondent had approached the
Tribunal stating that he had been appointed as a Group 'D'
employee on the daily wages in 1984. On completion of ten
years of service, his services were regularized by order dated
16.11.2007 with retrospective effect from 05.06.1997. His pay
was also fixed. While so, on 18.05.2015, a show cause notice
was issued stating that the order of regularization is to be
revoked since the applicant had continued in service on the
basis of interim orders granted by this Court. Though the
applicant had submitted a reply denying the contention, the
petitioner had gone on to pass orders recalling the order of
regularization, which was under challenge before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal considered the contentions and found
that the order of regularization dated 16.11.2007 specifically
stated that the petitioner had completed ten years of service as
Assistant Cook on daily wages. It was further found that though
the applicant had denied that his appointment had been
continued on the basis of interim orders of the High Court, no
NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB
details regarding such Interim Orders had been produced by
the petitioner before the Tribunal. It was found that the
petitioner could have produced copies of the Interim directions
to show that the order of recalling after ten years was justified.
However, this was not done.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice had not
only mentioned that the applicant had continued on the basis of
the Interim order but had also given the number of the writ
petition in which such orders had been passed. However, we
notice that even in this writ petition, the details of such orders
of copies thereof are not produced. We further notice that the
Tribunal had taken note of the contentions that the
regularization of the services was in the year 2007 with
retrospective effect from 1997. The Show Cause notice was
issued for the first time in the year 2015. We therefore, notice
that there has been a long delay on the part of the State to
invoke its power of recall, even if what is stated in the Show
cause notice were found to be correct. The petitioner, who had
been granted the benefits of regularization with effect from
16.11.2007 and had continued in regular service thereafter was
NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB
called upon only on 18.05.2015 to show cause why his
regularization should not be recalled. We are of the opinion
that the action of the petitioner was completely belated in view
of the fact that the respondent was a person who had initially
been appointed as a daily wager in the year 1984 and who had
been granted the benefit of regularization by order dated
16.11.2007 with effect from 1997.
5. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion
that the State is not entitled to raise the plea that the private
respondent did not meet one of the requirements for
regularization at this belated stage.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits
that if a further chance is given, a copy of the interim order by
which the private respondent was permitted to continue in
service can be procured and produced before this Court.
However, in the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion
that the plea made by the learned Additional Government
Advocate that the copies of the orders which are referred to in
the show cause should be permitted to be produced before the
Court is highly belated and cannot be considered.
NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
RAK
