IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.47893 OF 2018 (S-REG) BETWEEN:
SRI. B.M. RAJANNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS HRD DISTRICT CONSULTANT SWATCH BHARATH MISSION-GRAMIN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MARUTHINAGARA, NEAR OLD KEB GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN CHIKBALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN-561 208 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. M. ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER RURAL DRINKING WATER & SANITATION DEVELOPMENT 2ND FLOOR, E-BLOCK KHB COMPLEX KAVERI BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 009 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHIKKABALLAPURA PIN:562 101 4 . GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION SWACHH BHARAT MISSION (GRAMEEN) 12TH FLOOR, PT. DEENDAYAL ’ANTYODAYA BHAWAN’ CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. M.V. RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SHRI. A.P. PULAKESHI, CGC FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.09.2018 VIDE ANNEX-G PASSED BY THE R-3 HEREIN AND DIRECT R-1 TO 3 TO ABSORB AND REGULARIZE HIS SERVICES IN THE POST OF HRD CONSULTANT WITH ALL SERVICE BENEFITS AND ALSO PAY MINIMUM WAGES OF REGULAR PAY SCALE AND THE ARREARS THEREOF.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though this petition is listed for consideration of interim application for vacating interim order, with consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the petition is heard for final disposal.
2. Shri M. Aswathnarayana Reddy, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as HRD Consultant under Swacch Bharath Mission as per Agreement dated 09.11.2009. He has worked for nine years. The agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was being renewed from time to time. However, when he requested for renewal of his agreement with effect from 29.08.2018 to 28.08.2019, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Chikkaballapura, issued endorsement dated 04.09.2018, stating that the district has been declared as ‘free from open defecation’ and therefore, there was no need to continue the agreement.
3. Shri Reddy, contended that impugned endorsement is unsustainable in law because petitioner has worked for nine years and all of a sudden, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned endorsement. While the writ petition was pending consideration, respondent No.3 has again advertised calling upon applications for the post of HRD Consultant and other posts on 21.01.2019. Therefore, endorsement has been issued with a malafide intention to discontinue engagement of petitioner’s services.
4. Opposing the petition, Shri Somayaji, learned Advocate for respondent No.3 submitted that the terms of engagement are clearly spelt out in the agreement between petitioner and respondent No.3. Consultants are engaged by respondent No.3 for a specific scheme. In the instant case, petitioner was appointed under “Open Defecation Free (ODF) Scheme”. Since, the district has been declared free from open defecation, there is no need to continue consultancy services any further. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court of India in Air India Ltd. Vs. Dharmender Kumar1 5. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially taken as a consultant as per Agreement dated 09.11.2009. Parties have entered into an agreement in that behalf.
7. Clause 3 of the agreement dated 09.11.2009, reads as follows;
“The service of the consultant is procured for a period of 12 (Twelve) months from the date of its confirmation by the Consultant but not exceeding beyond 12 months unless otherwise mutually agreed upon for further extension. The client however, reserves the right to terminate the Agreement earlier than 12 months prior notice of minimum 15 days would be given to the Consultant by the client for further extension or earlier termination of the Agreement period.”
8. The last agreement was entered on 13.10.2017 for eleven months. Dispute resolution mechanism has been 1 (2001) 10 SCC 547 provided in the agreement, which permits the aggrieved party to seek remedy through arbitration.
9. The principal ground urged by learned advocate for petitioner is that petitioner had worked for nine years and therefore respondent could not have refused to execute agreement for the next term. However, it is relevant to note that petitioner’s engagement in the year 2009 is based on the agreement between the parties initially for the period of 12 months.
10. It is petitioner’s specific case that agreements were renewed from time to time and last agreement was executed on 13.10.2017 for a period of 11 months. The agreement also contains a clause to terminate the agreement after giving 15 days notice. The dispute resolution mechanism requires parties to settle the dispute amicably and the aggrieved party may also take recourse to arbitration.
11. The stand of respondent No.3 is that district in question has been declared as “Open Defecation Free” district. Therefore, consultancy services are no more required. It is also the case of respondent No.3 that the engagement of consultancy is “Scheme specific”. Since, the scheme is complete, respondent has chosen not to continue the agreement. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned endorsement dated 04.09.2018. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
12. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.3/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV