IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.17184 OF 2018(S-REG) BETWEEN H P PAPANNA S/O. PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DAILY WAGE ELECTRICIAN (GROUP-D), CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT (BY SRI MURALIDHAR K B, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS, BENGALURU 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS, BENGALURU 560001 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER AS ELECTRICIAN (WATER WORKS-GROUP-D) OR IN ANY OTHER GROUP-D POST IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN 'M.L.KESARI'S CASE' WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE HAS COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF DAILY WAGE SERVICE, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS SUCH AS SERVICE BENEFITS, MONETARY BENEFITS ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is working as daily wage employee in the City Municipal Council, Hosakote, Bangalore Rural District. It is contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as an Electrician, by order dated 18.05.1993. Thereafter, by order dated 01.04.1995, the Chief Officer of the City Municipal Council fixed the pay scale of Rs.840-1340, with effect from 01.04.1995 under ‘equal pay equal work’ policy in terms of Government Order bearing No.HUD 221 KMR 85 dated 16.05.1986. The said Order was made by the Chief Officer under the provisions of Rule 2(b) of The Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C & R Rules, 2004’ for brevity). Since there was a request from the petitioner and other similarly placed persons for regularisation of their services, the Director of Municipal Administration made a communication dated 30.10.1999 to the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council stating that the request of the petitioner and other persons for regularisation cannot be considered, however, since they had worked for more than 240 days and in the light of the judgments of this Court regarding ‘equal pay for equal work’, it was directed that the basic pay along with other emoluments that were paid to a permanent employee of Group ‘D’ cadre should be paid to the petitioner and the others mentioned in the said communication.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that under the C & R Rules, 2004, a new post of Electrician Grade-I and II was provided for, with a requisite qualification of S.S.L.C. pass and two years Electrical Trade Course from an Industrial Training Institute. This petitioner along with other daily wage employees approached this Court in W.P.No. 36747/2004 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise their services. The said petition was disposed of on 29.07.2005 directing the Director of Municipal Administration to consider the representation for regularisation, immediately after the pronouncement of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi, the State Government constituted district-level and state-level committees for regularisation of daily wage employees, as per Government Order dated 15.11.2006. However, it was found that as per the C & R Rules 2004, the post of Electrician is a Group-C post with a prescribed qualification of S.S.L.C. pass and two years Electrical Trade Course from an Industrial Training Institute. Since the petitioner did not possess the required qualification, the representation of the petitioner for regularisation was rejected. In the resolution of the TMC which was resolved in a meeting dated 30.06.2007, six daily wage employees were regularised, while the request of the petitioner was rejected.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made several representations to the Chief Officer of the TMC, Hosakote pointing out that when the petitioner was appointed as Electrician on 18.05.1993, the post of Electrician (Water Works) was available in the cadre of Group ‘D’ with a pay scale of Rs.65-95 which was revised to Rs.250-400, vide Government Order dated 31.05.1977. The Chief Officer and Project Director of the TMC addressed a letter dated 02.11.2010 to the Director of Municipal Administration, recommending regularisation of the services of the petitioner, followed by another communication dated 10.02.2015.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Director of Municipal Administration addressed a letter dated 06.11.2015 to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Karnataka, instructing them to take action for regularisation of daily wage Group ‘D’ employees working in the Municipalities, in terms of the Government Order dated 15.11.2006. However, since no decision was taken with respect to the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to make one more representation dated 26.10.2016 seeking regularisation as Group ‘D’ employee, having regard to the educational qualification of the petitioner, without insisting that he should be regularised as an Electrician in Group ‘C’ post. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is before this Court, since no decision is taken by the respondent on the representation dated 26.10.2016 made by the petitioner.
6. Heard Sri Muralidhar K.B., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.M.S.Prathima, learned AGA for the respondents.
7. As rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L.Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 has held that if an employee who has completed ten years of service but does not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularisation in suitable lower posts. Since the petitioner is not insisting that he be appointed as an Electrician which is a Group ‘C’ post for which the petitioner admittedly does not have the requisite qualification, he could be considered for regularisation in a Group ‘D’ post where the petitioner fulfills the required qualification.
8. In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of while directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.10.2016 at Annexure ‘R’ and pass orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In view of the above, I.A.No.1/2019 stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE JT/-