IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.13846-13847/2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI. A. MEHABOOB SAB S/O LATE ADDAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. MILLATH NAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPUR ROAD, KOLAR-563101.
2. SRI. PERUMAL S/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, DOOR NO.655, WARD NO.7, GULPET, KOLAR-563201.
(BY SRI. RAMESH K R, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KOLAR-563201.
(BY SRI. A. C. BALARAJ, HCGP FOR R1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS/ORDERS DTD:28.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 TO THE P-1 AND 2 AT ANNEXURE-D AND E AND THEREBY DIRECT THE R-1 ANE 2 TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE R-2, GRANT AN AD-INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT/ORDERS DTD:28.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AT ANNEXURE-D AND E THESE WRIT 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 as drivers in the 2nd respondent-Urban Development Authority, Kolar, which is a Autonomous Government Institution. The petitioners submit that, they were appointed as ad hoc drives on contract basis, on consolidated pay for the period 1993 and 1996, respectively. It is also submitted that, the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts, under the powers vested in the relevant Rules and Bye-laws. The 2nd respondent-Institution has resolved to appoint both the petitioners on daily wage basis against the sanctioned post by its resolution dated 31.10.1996. It is the case of the petitioners that, they have rendered continuous service with the 2nd respondent-Institution for more than 25 years, without any break.
2. The petitioners have made representations to the Head of the Institution and the State Government, seeking regularization of their services.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, under similar circumstances, the respondent-State Government, while exercising powers conferred under Section 3 & 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, framed special Rules for absorption of Doctors appointed on contract basis in the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services. The petitioners are seeking parity and consideration of their representations on similar basis. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have been in continuous service without any intervention of Court orders, interim orders or orders of the Tribunals.
4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Kamal Prasad and Others reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the orders passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand. While accepting the case of the respondent 20 employees that since 1987 till 2011, when the orders of termination of service were passed, they continued in service and their salaries were paid with other service benefits including increments and they were duly transferred from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand when it was formed and they were treated as regular appointees for which the Jharkhand State Government did not object their continuance in their services. The decision of the Division Bench stating that, if a person meets the requirements of the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi (3) case, 2006 (4) SCC 1, it is the duty of the State Government to consider his case for regularization in the post. The decision of the Division Bench in granting relief to the respondents was not interfered with. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the Judgment quoted supra would submit that, the representations given by the petitioners are required to be considered, since their cases 21 are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent- Institution has admitted that the appointments of the petitioners were against vacant posts. It is also admitted that the respondent- State Government had issued a Government Order and in compliance thereof, the respondent-Institution had forwarded the proposal for approval and absorption of the petitioners. However, the said Government Order was withdrawn by the State Government. The respondent- Institution would only submitted that, if the State Government permits absorption, the Institution would absorb and regularize the services of the petitioners on the condition that the petitioners have completed a minimum of 10 years continuous service.
6. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Prasad and Others (supra), the respondent-State Government and the Institution need to consider the representations made by the petitioners. The writ petitions are therefore partly allowed and the impugned endorsements dated 28.03.2017 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioners vide Annexures-D & E are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the representations given by the petitioners in the light of the decision of the Apex Court (supra) and pass orders as expeditiously as possible.
7. The petitioners are also permitted to make a fresh representations to the respondents along with the observations made by this Court, in this order.
SD/- JUDGE DL