IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.29384 OF 2013 (S - RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. K.P. MANJUNATH SON OF PUTTASWAMY SHETTY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS WORKING AS WATCHMAN MUKTHIDAMA, N.H.4-ROAD SIRA POST AND TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 131 (BY SRI.SHIVARAMU H.C., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR – 572 131 3. THE COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ... PETITIONER SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 131.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.A. SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) (BY SRI.S.RAJU, ADV., FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES OF 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR AND ALSO R3-COMMISSIONER, TMC, SIRA TUMKUR DISTRICT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER/REPRESENTATION FILED AS PER ANNEX-L AND M BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION OF HIS SERVICES AS WATCHMAN OF GRAVEYARD MUKTHIDAMA, SIRA OF TUMKUR DISTRICT AND ORDER TO PAY ALL SERVICE BENEFITS INCLUDING MONETARY BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS PER RESOLUTION DATED 12.08.2005 VIDE ANNEX-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Representations given by the petitioner vide Annexures-L and M, to respondent Nos.2 and 3 having remained unconsidered even after the lapse of more than a year, this petition was filed asking for a mandamus against respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the said representations and regularize the service of the petitioner, as a watchman of the grave yard at Mukthidama, Sira in Tumkur district.
2. Heard learned advocates and perused the petition.
3. Annexure-M was submitted to respondent No.2 on 28.09.2011. Acknowledgement in the form of seal and signature of the receiving official of the office of respondent No.2 appears therein. Even though more than five years has elapsed after receipt of Annexure-M, there is inaction on the part of respondent No.2. The delay is arbitrary. Though office of respondent No.3 has received Annexure-L on 23.09.2011, it has not taken any action. Respondent No.3 has the obligation of informing respondent No.2 of the factual position, with reference to the grievance stated by the petitioner in Annexure-L, so as to enable respondent No.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner stated in Annexure-M and pass orders.
In view of the above, petition is allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to submit the factual position by consideration of Annexure-L to respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider Annexure-M with reference to the input which shall be furnished by respondent No.3. The out come of consideration by respondent No.2 shall be made known to the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH