IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.55319 OF 2016 (S-RES) Between:
Sri.Ramachandrappa, S/o late Annaiah, Aged about 55 years, Working as D Group, At Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru-560 048.
(By Sri.D.S.Mali Patil, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Principal Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department M.S. Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Director of Municipal, Administration, VV Tower, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The Joint Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore, Mahanagara Palike, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru-560 048.
…Petitioner 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, K.G.Road, Bangalore-01.
...Respondents (By Sri.Sreedhar N Hegde, HCGP for R1, R2 and R4 Copy served on R3 through hand summons and unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus against the R-3 to consider the representation vide Annexure-A and to regularize the services of the petitioner.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs;
a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus against the third respondent to consider the representation vide Annexure-A and to regularize the services of the petitioner.
b) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on daily wages from 01.05.1992 in the then Gram Panchayath, Cauvery Nagar. Thereafter, Government on account of notifying the area committee and Gram Panchayath merger with Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, respondent No.3 is hereby directed to take decision whether petitioner is entitled to regularisation against the Group D post or not in terms of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi reported in AIR 2006 4 SCC 1 read with Union of India V/s. Central Administrative Tribunal reported in 2019 4 SCC 290, that as on 10.04.2006 petitioner fulfill the criteria laid down in the aforesaid decisions.
3. Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to take decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
With the above observations, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SB