Karnataka High Court
Reprented By Its Prinipal Secretary To ... vs Shri M A Biradar Age 53 Yeras Occ ... on 4 September, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12738-DB
WA No. 100387 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.100387 OF 2023 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TO THE DEPT OF COOPERATION,
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPARTMENT,
NO.16, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI M.A. BIRADAR
(MOHAMMAD S/O. AMEEN PATEL BIRADAR),
Digitally
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. DRAUGHTSMAN
signed by OFFICE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
JAGADISH T R
Location: High HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD 580001.
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad
Bench
2. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE,
MARKET COMMITTEE, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.113905/2019 (S-REG).
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12738-DB
WA No. 100387 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
This Intra-Court appeal by the State Government and
Director of Agricultural Marketing Department calls in question
a learned Single Judge's order dated 15.12.2022 whereby
respondent's-employee's W.P. No.113905/2019 having been
favoured the endorsement of the second appellant dated
25.06.2018 denying regularization of service has been
quashed. Further, a direction has been issued to the
appellants to regularize the employee's service with
retrospective effect from the day when he completed ten
years of service and furthermore, to grant all consequential
benefits within a period of three months. Learned Single Judge
has clarified that the regulrisation of service should be in the
'post of JE or any other equivalent post'.
2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants vehemently argues that the impugned judgment is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12738-DB
liable to be voided since direction for regularization as such
cannot be granted; the added infirmity in the judgment is in
specifying the post in which the employee should be deemed
to have worked; the Rulings invoked by the learned Single
Judge viz., Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab1 is faultsome.
So arguing, he seeks allowing of the appeal.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondent-employee repels the contention of the learned
Government Advocate and makes submission in justification of
the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been
constructed. He adds that the invocation of Apex Court
decision in Nihal Singh supra cannot be faltered since the said
decision has comparable fact matrix of this case, although
there cannot be a perfect match. He also draws our attention
to another Single Judge's order in W.P.No83563-564/2012
between Smt. Shakremma & another vs. The Agriculture
Officer & another decided in Kalaburgati Bench on 06.03.2020
and that the same has been affirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in W.A. No.200005/2021 (S-REG) disposed of on
2013(139) FLR 309
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12738-DB
03.01.2022. He also tells that even further challenge in SLP
No.11903/2022 has been negatived by the Apex Court on
03.10.2023. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we are broadly in
agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in
granting relief to an employee who has put in a long and
spotless service, although not on regular basis. The
uninterrupted service of the respondent in the position he held
cannot be disputed. If all similarly circumstanced employees
have been granted regularization of services, as is evidenced
by Shakremma case supra, a Welfare State, as ordained
under the Constitution, cannot have a step motherly attitude
qua the respondent herein as rightly contended by learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Shastri. As already mentioned above, the
decision in Shankremma is affirmed by the Division Bench
and further challenge to the same, is negatived by the Apex
Court. The fact matrix of Shakremma broadly match with
that of the appeal at hands.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12738-DB
5. The vehement submission of the learned
Government Advocate that in no case a Writ Court can grant a
direction to regularize the services of a daily wager or a
monthly rated employee, is too far-fetched a proposition.
Ordinarily, such a direction is not granted is true. However,
learned Single Judge has given a cogent reason viz., that the
respondent-employee was made to approach the Court
several times. It hardly needs to be stated that the
Constitution is meant for maintaining practical rights of
citizens; a Constitutional Court cannot turn away a worthy
cause brought by a litigant by quoting some jurisprudential
theories.
6. The last contention of learned Government
Advocate that the question of regularization would not arise
when the respondent was not appointed to the sanctioned
post, again does not merit acceptance. This aspect of the
matter has been discussed in Nihal Singh supra. This
decision having been considered by a learned Single Judge in
Smt. Shankremma, relief has been granted to the similarly
circumstanced employee by another learned Single Judge, and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12738-DB
that decision is affirmed by the Division Bench, as mentioned
above. This aspect of the matter has been discussed by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The matter
having been taken to Apex Court, SLP too has been dismissed
in Shankremma case.
In the above circumstances, this appeal is liable to be
dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
The appellants are directed to give effect to the order of the
learned Single Judge within an outer limit of three months.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
KMS
