IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.27019-27020/2017 (S-REG) C/W WRIT PETITION NOs.31783-31788/2017 (S-REG) IN W.P.NOs.27019-27020/2017 BETWEEN 1. INDRAJITH ISLAVATH NAIK. K S/O. TRK NAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR, DF UNIT, BANAVARA-573 112, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS, LEFT SIDE, MALLESHWARA NAGARA-573 103, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. C. H. MAHESHA S/O. HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR, YADAVANAHALLI, GANDSI POST-573 164, R/A NEAR ADI CHUNCHANAGIRI SCHOOL, HOUSING BOARD, LAKSHMIPURA, ARASIKERE TALUK-573 103, HASSAN DISTRICT.
(BY SRI M V RAMESH JOIS, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VITC BUILDINGS, KASTURABA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, BENGALURU-560 001.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 SRI C N VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION.
IN W.P.NOs.31783-31788/2017 BETWEEN 1. C L KESHAVAIAH S/O LOKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS CHIKARAKALAGUD AND POST ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN- 573116 2. K C KOTTRAPPA S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O KANDALAMAGE K KETHANKERE POST KANAKAUTE HOBLI ARASI HERE TALUK HASSAN -573116 3. D C RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS DUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE POST ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN- 573116 4. M N HANUME GOWDA NANJE GOWDA AGED 50 YEARS HUDALAPURA KUNDUR POS CHANARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN - 573116 5. K S BASAVARAJ S/O NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DODDAYANAGANOLU ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN -573116 6. CHANDRE GOWDA T N S/O NANJUNDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT DODDAKARDE KUNDOR POST DANDINAGARAHALLI HOBLI CHANARAYAPATNA DISTRICT HASSAN-573116 ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT LAKSHMI G, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VITC BUILDING KASTURBA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR N.HEGDE, HGCP FOR R1 SRI C N VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE RELIEF OF THE PETITIONERS TO REGULARIZE THEIR SERVICE AND GRANT SERVICE BENEFITS AND BASIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS PER THE SENIORITY LIST.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are working with the second respondent- Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation Limited, at various places in the State.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they have been working continuously with the second respondent for a period ranging between 12-26 years. On an earlier occasion, the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.10745- 10756/2012 and connected matters which came to be disposed of on 18.07.2012, with a direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization as and when it becomes inevitable for the Corporation, in such a case, preference and priority was directed to be given to the petitioners.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the second respondent has passed several resolutions in its Board meeting for regularization of the services of the petitioners and similarly situated persons and the proposal has been forwarded to the State Government. The State Government has not taken any final decision though the resolution was sent to the State Government in the year 2015. The petitioners, therefore, seek a direction to the respondents to consider their representations for regularization and to pass orders accordingly.
4. The second respondent has filed statement of objections. The second respondent admits that the directions issued by this Court in the writ petitions mentioned earlier, has been partly complied with by regularising 17 persons. It is submitted at the hands of the second respondent that the 17 persons whose services were regularised were senior to the petitioners herein.
5. In fact, it has been stated in the objections that before passing the order of regularisation, clarification was sought from this Court and on 24.01.2011, the Managing Director of the second respondent-Corporation was called to explain as to how the order of regularisation was passed. It is further stated that though the 17 persons were regularised, the Corporation is not in a position to fix their responsibility, fix payscale and prepare seniority list. This is because the Corporation does not have the C & R Rules. In this regard, the second respondent has prepared a draft of the C & R Rules and the same has been forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary for approval.
6. Having heard the learned Counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioners will have to be considered by the second respondent-Corporation, in the light of the directions already issued by this Court in writ petitions mentioned above. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the draft of the C & R Rules which were communicated to the State may receive approval in the near future. But the fact remains that irrespective of whether the C & R Rules may or may not be approved by the State Government, the second respondent Corporation is duty bound to comply with the directions issued by this Court.
7. It is asserted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that sufficient vacancies are there in the respondent-Corporation and the petitioners could be regularised in terms of the directions earlier issued by this Court.
8. In the light of the above, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the second respondent-Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioners for regularization, in terms of the order dated 18.07.2012 issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.10745-10756/2012 as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the representation given by the petitioners are not available with the respondent-Corporation, the memorandum of these writ petitions may be treated as a representation by the petitioners.
JT/-
SD/- JUDGE