IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BETWEEN BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W. P. Nos.13010-15/2017 (S-REG) 1. SRI. M.G. MALLESHAPPA S/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST `WATCHER O/O RANGE FOREST OFFICE CHIKKAMANGALUR RANGE CHIKKAMANGALUR-577101 2. SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR S/O T.PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS LITERATE ASSISTANT O/O ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST OFFICE, MUDIGERE SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKAMANGALUR-577132 3. SRI. S.RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS LITERATE ASSISTANT O/O RANGE FOREST OFFICE MUTHODI RANGE MALLANDUR CHIKKAMANGALUR-577130.
4. SRI. M.MUNIRAJA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER O/O RANGE FOREST OFFICE MUTHODI RANGE MALLANDUR CHIKKAMANGALUR-577130 5. SRI. D.S. PUTTEGOWDA S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER O/O SURVEY AND DEMARCATIION DIVISION, CHIKKAMANGALURU-577101 6. SRI. B.K. RAMAIAH S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER O/O RANGE FOREST OFFICE MUTHODI RANGE, MALLANDUR CHIKKAMANGALUR-577130. .. PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI-ADV) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATORS OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560003 3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CHICKMAGALURU DIVISION CHICKMAGALURU-577101 .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.S.INDIRESH-AGA) THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 9.1.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-AD SERIES AND TO REGULARISE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS ON COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON’BLE APEX COURT ON 7.3.2014 IN THE CASE OF MALTHI DAS (RETIRED) NOW P.B.MAHISY & OTHERS VS SURESH & OTHERS, WHICH IS REPORTED IN (2014) 13 SCC 249 AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND ALSO CONSIDER THE CASES OF CIVIL APPEAL NO.3338/2014 THE PETITIONERS ON THE PRINCIPLES OF PARITY ON PAR WITH THAT GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 4.2.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE- K AND ETC.
THESE WPs COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA would submit that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 9.2.2107 vide Annexure- AD series to the writ petition praying for regularization of their service, having completed 10 years, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malathi Das (Retired) now P.B.Mahishy and Others – vs – Suresh and Others reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 249. It is further submitted that this Court, in similar circumstance, has been pleased to grant a similar relief to the petitioner in W.P.No.5028/2017.
3. This Court in W.P.No.5028/2017 has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein for implementation in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC Page 1 and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malathi Das (Retired) now P.B.Mahishy and Others – vs – Suresh and Others reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 249 and on the grounds of parity in the light of regularization of similarly placed workmen.
4. The learned AGA fairly submits that the petitioners in these writ petitions are also similarly placed as the petitioner in W.P.No.5028/2017 and hence, the writ petitions may be disposed off.
5. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners and the respondents.
6. Learned AGA accepts notice on behalf on behalf of the respondents.
7. The petitioners are before this Court, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in regularizing of their services pursuant to the directions issued by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.9445-9493/2001 disposed of on 03.10.2012.
8. It is case of the petitioners that petitioners 1, 4 and 6 were appointed as Forest Watchers and petitioners 2 and 3 were appointed as Literary Assistants in the Department of Forest at Chickmagaluru Division and despite long period of service, they were not accorded the relief of regularization. Hence, they approached the Tribunal seeking for an appropriate relief.
9. The Tribunal after hearing the parties including the current respondents, was pleased to allow the applications and further directed that where the Authority finds that the applicants have put in 10 years of service, the respondents shall have to consider regularization of their services. It further directed that the entire exercise of examination and decision making be completed within a period of four weeks. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court rendered in W.P. Nos.40835-38/1999. The said order was carried in appeal in W.P. Nos.43246- 43294/2002 disposed of on 14.01.2003 by the respondents herein, wherein the Division Bench of this Court after examining the point was pleased to hold;
“The principle clearly appears to be that anyone employed continuously for more than 10 years on daily wage basis should be considered for regularization, provided there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee in securing or continuing in such daily wage employment and the employee possesses the prescribed qualification for the post to which he is considered for regularization.”
Hence, the Division Bench was pleased to reject the writ petitions preferred by the respondent/State impugning the direction of the Tribunal. A case, similar in nature was taken up by the State before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.13724/2006, disposed of on 16.04.2013, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the order and was pleased to observe as follows:
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the fact that the respondents have been in continuous service for 25-28 years, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.”
Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the direction issued by the Tribunal on the said applications has become final.
10. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if the petitions are restricted to the first prayer, the same would be considered and disposed of by the respondents within a period of two months.
11. It is seen that consideration of the case of the petitioners has been mandated and is not a choice or concession that has to be advanced by the respondents. There is no justification for the inordinate delay by the respondents in considering the case of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. The parameters for consideration of the case has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in innumerable cases, more particularly in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 and further clarified in the case of Malathi Das (Retired) now P.B. Mahishy and Others – vs – Suresh and others reported in (2014)13 Supreme Court Cases 249 and as also by the orders of this Court, more particularly in W.P. No.43246-43294/2002 referred to supra. It is also seen that the respondents have considered the case of similarly situated persons and have granted the relief of regularization of their services.
12. In view of the above, direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for implementation in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC Page 1 and further clarified by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in the case of Malathi Das and Others – vs – Suresh and Others reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 249 and also on the grounds of parity in the light of regularization of similarly placed workmen. The writ petitions stand disposed off accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE rs