Karnataka High Court
Mapamma vs Sanjay S Bijjur Ifs And Ors on 9 January, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
CCC No. 200222 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200222 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MAPAMMA W/O LATE MALLIKARJUN
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. LABOUT-CUM-WATCHMAN
WORKING AT RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
KALABURAGI - 585102.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, SRI SUSHIT GANACHARI &
SRI DEVARAJ MANOHAR, ADVS.)
AND:
1. SRI SANJAY S BIJJUR, IFS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Digitally signed GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI FOREST, ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 09.
KARNATAKA
2. SRI BRIJESH KUMAR DIXIT, IFS
PRL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560003.
3. SRI SUNIL PERVAR
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585102.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
CCC No. 200222 of 2024
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
FOREST, ECOLOGY & ENIVRONMENT,
4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 09.
...PROFORMA PARTY
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, GA)
THIS CCC IS FILED U/SEC. 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT
OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HTE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND
ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING
PUNISHING THEM IN SO FAR AS DISOBEDIENCE OF THE
ORDER PASSED IN NO. 203241/2016 DATED 20.09.2023
WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION
AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING PUNISHING THEM WITH
IMPRISONMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The present petition has been filed seeking for
initiation of contempt proceedings against the accused and
for taking action including punishing them insofar as
disobedience of the order passed in W.P.No.203241/2016
dated 20.09.2023.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
2. The complainant was the petitioner before the
learned Single Judge and had sought for issuance of a writ
to direct the respondents in the writ petition to regularize
her service with effect from 01.01.1984 and extend all
consequential benefits. The said writ petition came to be
allowed and the directions at paragraph Nos.5 and 6 are of
relevance and are extracted below;
"5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties, the grievance of the petitioner is that
the petitioner is working in the respondent-
Authorities and the case of the petitioner has not
been considered for regularisation. Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of SHEO NARAIN NAGAR (supra)
at Paragraphs 8 to 10 held as follows;
"8. When we consider the prevailing
scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in
Uma Devi (Supra) has not been properly
understood and rather wrongly applied by various
State Governments. We have called for the data in
the instant case to ensure as to how many
employees were working on contract basis or ad-
hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State
departments. We can take judicial notice that
widely aforesaid practice is being continued.
Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents
should be appointed on regular basis as per rules
but new devise of making appointment on contract
basis has been adopted, employment is offered on
daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms. This
situation was not envisaged by Uma Devi (supra).
The prime intendment of the decision was that the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
employment process should be by fair means and
not by back door entry and in the available pay
scale. That spirit of the Uma Devi (supra) has been
ignored and conveniently over looked by various
State Governments/ authorities. We regretfully
make the observation that Uma Devi (supra) has
not be implemented in its true spirit and has not
been followed in its pith and substance. It is being
used only as a tool for not regularizing the services
of incumbents. They are being continued in service
without payment of due salary for which they are
entitled on the basis of Article 14, 16 read
with Article 34 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India as
if they have no constitutional protection as
envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR
1983 SC 130 from cradle to grave. In heydays of
life they are serving on exploitative terms with no
guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old
age they are going to be destituted, there being no
provision for pension, retiral benefits etc. There is
clear contravention of constitutional provisions and
aspiration of down trodden class. They do have
equal rights and to make them equals they require
protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The
kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but
equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We
have to strike a balance to really implement the
ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus, the time has
come to stop the situation where Uma Devi (supra)
can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court
has interdicted such employment way back in the
year 2006. The employment cannot be on
exploitative terms, whereas Uma Devi (supra) laid
down that there should not be back door entry and
every post should be filled by regular employment,
but a new device has been adopted for making
appointment on payment of paltry system on
contract/adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of
action is not permissible, when we consider the pith
and substance of true spirit in Uma Devi (supra).
9. Coming to the facts of the instant case,
there was a direction issued way back in the year
1999, to consider the regularization of the
appellants. However, regularization was not done.
The respondents chose to give minimum of the pay
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
scale, which was available to the regular
employees, way back in the year 2000 and by
passing an order, the appellants were also
conferred temporary status in the year 2006, with
retrospective effect on 2.10.2002. As the
respondents have themselves chosen to confer a
temporary status to the employees, as such there
was requirement at work and posts were also
available at the particular point of time when order
was passed. Thus, the submission raised by learned
counsel for the respondent that posts were not
available, is belied by their own action. Obviously,
the order was passed considering the long period of
services rendered by the appellants, which were
taken on exploitative terms.
10. The High Court dismissed the writ
application relying on the decision in Uma Devi
(supra). But the appellants were employed basically
in the year 1993; they had rendered service for
three years, when they were offered the service on
contract basis; it was not the case of back door
entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering
such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment
could not be said to be illegal and in contravention
of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at
the relevant point of time, when their temporary
status was conferred w.e.f. 2.10.2002. The
appellants were required to be appointed on regular
basis as a one-time measure, as laid down in
paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (supra). Since the
appellants had completed 10 years of service and
temporary status had been given by the
respondents with retrospective effect in the
2.10.2002, we direct that the services of the
appellants be regularized from the said date i.e.
2.10.2002, consequential benefits and the arrears
of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a
period of three months from today."
6. In the case of RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA
(supra), the aspect of the employees who have
worked for more than a decade has been considered
in the light of SHEO NARAIAN NAGAR (supra). In
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
that view of the matter, I am of view that
respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to take
decision in the matter relating to the regularisation
of the petitioner in accordance with law, within an
outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
this order in the light of observation made by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of SHEO NARIAN NAGAR
(supra) and aforementioned cases. With this
observation, writ petition stands disposed of."
3. The Respondent State has filed their affidavit
through the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Department of
Forest, Kalaburagi and have enclosed along with the
affidavit, the orders considering the claim of the
petitioner's at Annexure-R15, which is an endorsement
dated 04.01.2025. The endorsement is to the effect that
the records were not available regarding the petitioner
having worked against the sanctioned post before
01.07.1984. Further, the observation is made that the first
of the condition imposed as a relevant criteria for
regularization in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
Vs. Umadevi and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1,
has not been complied with.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the endorsement is issued
without application of mind and is contrary to records with
the respondents, who are the custodian of such records.
Further it is submitted that the very purpose of the
learned Single Judge referring to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Sheo Narain Nagar and
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
reported in AIR 2018 SC 233, has been ignored.
5. The learned Government Advocate relies on the
affidavit and submits that the endorsement has taken note
of the direction for consideration and reference is made to
the judgment in Sheo Narain's case (supra) as well and in
light of the findings made in the endorsement, it cannot be
stated that there is any willful disobedience of order of this
Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
6. Heard both sides.
7. It must be noticed that to constitute an act of
contempt there has to be willful disobedience of order of
this Court. It is also to be noticed that proceedings for
contempt are essentially one between the Court and the
contemnor and the complainant merely places before the
Court, their grievance regarding willful disobedience and
Court takes note of it.
8. The submission of learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner is well taken to the extent that
in cases of regularization of employees holding the posts
at the lowest rung, often they are subjected to repeated
rounds of litigation. As a result of such order the
employees are made to run from pillar to post and orders
of Court remain on paper. The concern of learned Senior
Counsel for the weak employees who are pitted against
the mighty State also deserves requisite consideration at
the hands of the State while dealing with the cases of daily
wage employees.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
9. Perused the endorsement made. One of the
points raised is non fulfillment of first of the conditions in
Uma Devi's case (supra). There is also reference to the
law laid down in Sheo Narain Nagar and Others Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in AIR
2018 SC 233. The endorsement may be wrong in law, but
the appropriate remedy is before a different forum. The
consideration by way of an endorsement cannot be stated
to constitute willful disobedience though prima facie it
appears to be wanting in various aspects and it will not be
appropriate to express any comment regarding the legality
of such order.
10. Accordingly, the proceedings are dropped while
keeping it open for the complainant to challenge the
endorsement in accordance with law. If the petitioner were
to challenge the endorsement, the State to co-operate
before the appropriate forum to ensure that the
proceedings are disposed off expeditiously and such
observation is made taking note that the petitioner is
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:99-DB
already aged 59 years and is stated to have been waging
the litigation for a long time.
Accordingly, proceedings are dropped.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR
CT: PS
