IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI W.P. NOs.16760-61/2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.VISHWANATH B.M.
S/O. LATE MURUGENDRA SWAMY B.M., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS GRADUATE ENGINEER OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NO.4, SUB-DIVISION MYSURU-570 011 2. SRI K.T.NAVEEN KUMAR S/O.THAMMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS COMPUTER OPERATOR OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NO.4, SUB-DIVISION MYSURU-570 011 (BY SRI.MANJUNATHA K., ADV.- ABSENT) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME & TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (POLICE SERVICES) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 … PETITIONERS 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED NO.59, RICHMOND ROAD (GENERAL K S THIMMAYYA ROAD) BENGALURU-560 025 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED NO.59, RICHMOND ROAD (GENERAL K S THIMMAYYA ROAD) BENGALURU-560 025 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED NO.4, SUB-DIVISION MYSURU-570 011 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED NO.4, SUB-DIVISION MYSURU-570 011 (BY SMT.M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED: 19.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-Z AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES 7 (2) OF THE C & R RULES AND IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED: 24.09.2018 IN W.P. NO.39824/2018 AND W.P. NO.40249/2018 (S-RES) WHICH IS PLACED AT ANNEXURE-Y AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER On 11.7.2019 following order was passed:
Petitioners have sought for quashing of endorsement dated 19.03.2019 issued by respondent No.3, wherein he has elaborately discussed the judicial pronouncement while rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularisation.
Undisputedly, petitioners have not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 the date on which Umadevi’s case was decided. The issue has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the latest decision in the case of Union of India & Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290 at para Nos.18 to 20, which read as under:-
“18. It is of relevance to consider the directions rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (3). P.K.Balasubramanyan, J., speaking for the Court, held thus: (SCC p. 42, para 53) “53. … In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
(emphasis in original) 19. The directions issued in Umadevi (3) have been considered by subsequent Benches of this Court. In State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, a two- Judge Bench of this Court held that the “one-time measure” prescribed in Umadevi (3) must be considered as concluded only when all employees who were entitled for regularisation under Umadevi (3), had been considered. R.V.Raveendran, J., who wrote the opinion of the Court, held: (M.L. Kesari case, SCC pp.250-51, paras 9-11) “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi(3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily- wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.
10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3), will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-
wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3)] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure.”
(emphasis supplied) 20. The judgment of this Court in Umadevi (3) does not preclude the claims of employees who seek regularisation after the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some employees, provided that the said employees have completed the years of service as mandated by Umadevi (3). The ruling casts an obligation on the State and its instrumentalities to grant a fair opportunity of regularisation to all such employees which are entitled according to the mandate under Umadevi (3) and ensure that the benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent regularisation of employees who have completed the requisite period of service is to be considered as a continuation of the one-time exercise.”
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to get further instructions.
List these matters on 18.07.2019.
2. In order to give one more opportunity, matter was adjourned.
3. Today, matter called twice. Counsel for the petitioner is not present. Proxy counsel Smt. S.V. Shyalaja, seeks time and it is declined in view of the order dated 11.7.2019.
Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE BS