IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W. P. Nos.34217-220/2014 (S-REG) BETWEEN 1. SMT.SOMESHWARI D/O C.G.NARASIMHALU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS TYPIST 2. SRI.G.N. ANAND S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT 3. SRI.P.C. SHIVASHANKAR S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BLUE PRINTER 4. SRI.H.G. LOKESH S/O GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DRIVER ALL ARE WORKING AT HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, B.M.ROAD HASSAN ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGAIAH-ADV) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. THE HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, B.M.ROAD HASSAN-573201 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.S.INDIRESH-AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.R.RAMESH-ADV FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CORRESPONDENCE DATED:05/11.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE R- 1 AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNXURE-N AND O RESPECTIVELY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.
2. A perusal of the communication by the respondent No.1 dated 05/11.06.2013 indicates that upon a request made by the respondent No.2 dated 27.05.2013, the respondent No.1 has merely clarified the position obtaining in law pursuant to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and others reported ILR (2006) 4 SCC 1. The respondent No.1 has clarified that employees who have rendered service for 10 years or more without the aid or intervention of court orders are entitled to be considered for absorption or regularization. Thereafter, proceeding further the respondent No.1 has stated that in view of the law laid down, the petitioners are not entitled to be considered for regularization. The endorsement does not state on what ground the petitioners are not entitled. Apart from merely reiterating the legal position, no ground is stated as to how they are disentitled. Pursuant to the said endorsement the respondent No.2 has proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement dated 18.01.2014. Both the endorsements reflect stark non application of mind and are non speaking orders. It is neither contended before this court nor is it reflected in the endorsement that the petitioners have not put in 10 years or more of service or that they have been holding of office on the strength of any court orders or on the intervention of the courts.
3. That being so, the endorsements issued without reference to the factual merits of the claim is arbitrary, whimsical and unsustainable. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsements warrant interference at the hands of this court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned endorsements are set aside. The respondents are further directed to redo the exercise of consideration of the petitioners case for regularization in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court after assessing the case of the petitioners individually. The second respondent shall conclude the exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent No.1 shall thereafter within one month from the date of receipt of the proposal from the respondent No.2 pass orders in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed off accordingly on the above terms.
Sd/- JUDGE SS-CT Chs