IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION Nos.2138-2140/2017 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMALU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS SWEEPER OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE K.G.F.-563 122 2. GOVINDA S/O M.VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS WORKING AS SWEEPER OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE K.G.F.-563 122 3. SMT. DHANAMMA W/O. NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS SWEEPER K.G.F.-563 122 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI T.V.BALUVINAY FOR SRI ADINATHA NARDE, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE K.G.F.-563 122 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.NAGARAJ, AGA) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY KAT DATED 18.09.2013 AT ANNEX-A AND REGULARISED THE SERVICES OF THE APPLICANTS AND RELEASE ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THERE FROM AND TO DECLARE THAT NOT REGULARISING THE SERVICES OF THE APPLICANTS ON PAR WITH OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES IS ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure-A), whereby the applications of the petitioners to regularise their services have been dismissed on the ground that they were not entitled for regularisation of services in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].
2. It is relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the petitioners’ applications.
“4. It is not disputed that the Applicants were working as part-time Sweepers only for limited period i.e. one or two hours a day to clean the premises of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, K.G.F. It is clear that they are not working as full time daily wage Sweepers against sanctioned vacant posts. They are not getting payment of any regular salary or wages like regular daily wage employees, but they are paid consolidated amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. out of the contingency fund meant for contingent office expenditure. It is for this reason that their pleas have been repeatedly turned down by the Authorities. In this regard, it is worthwhile to quote the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-34 of Umadevi’s case referred to above, on which the Respondents have placed reliance to reject the claim of the Applicants:
“34……….. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant Rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme ”
5. We therefore, hold that there is no merit in the plea of the Applicants and the Applications are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, Applications are dismissed.” (Underlining supplied) 3. We find no error in the above reasoning of the Administrative Tribunal to warrant interference. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-