IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.10799-10800 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI S MALLIKARJUNA ANGADI S/O SHIVALINGAPPA ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS ATTENDER, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, BILAKI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577428 2. SRI. NINGAPPA GUDAGI S/O DEVENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS WARD SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT GENERAL BOYS HOSTEL, HANAGAL TALUK PRESENTLY R/AT C/O M.N.HOSAGOUDAR, NO.387, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, S.NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-570 004 (BY SMT ANITHA H R, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. THE SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, DHANVANTHARI ROAD, NEAR ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL WELFARE 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 (BY SRI A C BALRAJ, HCGP FOR R1 & R3 R2 SERVED) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-3 DTD: 30.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner No.1 is working as Attender in Government Ayurveda Hospital, Bilaki, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District, from the date of appointment that is 17.7.1988. The petitioner No.2 is working as Ward Superintendent in Government General Boys Hostel, Naregal, Hanagal Taluk, Haveri district from the date of appointment i.e., 9.3.1985.
2. The petitioners along with several other similarly placed employees had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.42116-42253/2001 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to regularise their services as they had completed services of more than 10 years. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 03.12.2001 directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government preferred an appeal before the Division Bench, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the State Government took up the matter before the Apex Court and by order dated 25.02.2008, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the respondent State Government to look into the individual cases and examine their continuation of service in terms of the scheme or other provisions of law on the subject available in the State. A specific direction was also issued to consider the cases of the petitioners in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P.State Electricity Board /vs./ Pooran Chandra Pandey & Others, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 374.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the respondents did not pass any orders, they were constrained to approach this Court once again in W.P.No.59654-59658/2016. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 17.01.2017, once again directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka /vs./ Umadevi, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1. However, since there was inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioners approached the contempt Court in CCC No.3/2018 & CCC No.88/2018. The contempt Court, however observed that no time limit was fixed to consider the representations and therefore the contempt proceedings were dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the complainants to apply for fixing of time limit for consideration of the representations. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of the liberty being granted by the Division Bench, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if a direction is issued to the respondents State Government to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 16.2.2017 at Annexures - D and E, seeking regularisation, as was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 25.02.2008 in SLP Civil CCC No.4105-4242/2005, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that an endorsement dated 30.11.2017 was issued to petitioner No.2, rejecting his representation. In the light of the observations of the Division Bench in the contempt case, this Court deems it fit to quash the endorsement dated 30.11.2017 issued by the respondent State Government. The State Government is also required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who will have their say in the matter. Therefore, the concerned officer of the respondent State Government shall issue notice to the petitioners calling upon them to appear before the said authority and submit their contentions. The authorities shall thereafter pass a speaking order after hearing the parties. All the contentions are left open.
Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE