IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO WRIT PETITION NO.8307/2015 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BENGALURU-I COMMISSIONERATE C.R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, C.R BUILDING, “C” BLOCK, DEVRAJ URS LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA-577201 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.H JAYAKARA SHETTY, CGC) AND:
SMT ANNAPURNAMMA W/O LATE ISHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS CONTINGENT CASUAL LABOUR OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHITRADURGA RANGE CHITRADURGA-577201 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.IZHAR AHMED, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2014 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN O.A. NO. 958/2013 VIDE ANN-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
FINAL ORDER The present petition is directed against the order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Tribunal whereby, for the reasons recorded in the order, has allowed the application.
2. We have heard Mr.Jayakar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Izhar Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. When we have taken up the matter for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that similar matter came to be considered by this court in WP 42814/2016 and allied matters decided on 15.11.2016 and this Court, for the reasons recorded in the order has not interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal and he submitted that the similar order may be passed by this court.
4. Whereas, learned counsel Mr.Izhar Ahmed, for the respondent states that matter is already settled long back before this Court and the SLP is also dismissed.
5. We may record that, this Court in the above referred order dated 15.11.2016 had observed thus:
“The present petitions are directed against similar impugned orders by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal by relying upon its earlier order has directed for granting temporary status and thereafter such status is to be considered for regularization in the due course on the basis of the seniority.
2. We have heard Mr. H.Jayakara Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the matters and Mr. Sumanth L Bharadwaj and Sri M.V.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. The perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order passed in O.A.No. 128/2008 dated 27.1.2012 and allied matters and based on the said order the Tribunal has passed the impugned orders.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the fact situation in the present case are the same as they were considered in O.A.No. 128/2008 decided on 27.1.2012. Under these circumstances, if the Tribunal has followed its earlier decision, it cannot be said to be any error committed on the part of the Tribunal.
5. Apart from the above it is also undisputed position that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 27.1.2012 in O.A.No. 128/2008 was carried before this Court together with the similar other orders passed by the Tribunal in Writ Petition No. 70873/2012 and allied matters and this Court vide order dated 18.6.2013 observed thus :-
“6. After hearing the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties, after careful perusal of the orders impugned passed by the Tribunal and the material available on file and after going through the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court in other matters as stated supra, we do not find any error or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. Further, it is significant to note that, the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari reported in AIR (Scheduled Caste)- 2010-0-2587 has observed as under:
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (1967 (1) SCR 128), R.N. Nanjundappa (1972 (1) SCC 409) and B.N. Nagarajan (1979 (4) SCC 507) and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize 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...”
6. In view of the aforesaid decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court, no interference would be called for since the earlier view of the coordinate Bench of this Court is binding upon us, including the reasoning recorded therein.
7. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that the aforesaid decision of this Court was carried by the petitioners before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 19969/2014 and the Apex Court vide order dated 5.12.2014 after condoning the delay has dismissed the petition. Of course, the question of law was kept open to be decided at the relevant point of time. However, in the other SLP preferred against the very order in respect of other connected matters being SLP (Civil) No. 13733/2014, the Apex Court after condonation of delay also found no merit and the SLP was dismissed. The aforesaid fact situation shows that the view taken by this Court referred to hereinabove has not been interfered with by the Apex Court.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, made a lame attempt to contend that the dismissal of SLP would not mean that the Apex Court has examined the matter on merits or any point of law is decided and, therefore, this Court may again consider the question which arise in the present petitions.
9. We cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the simple reason that even it is considered that the SLP was summarily dismissed, then also the earlier view of this Court dated 18.6.2013 is a decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court. We do not find it appropriate to record dissenting reason and to refer the matter to larger Bench.
10. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference.”
6. In view of the above, no interference is called in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
7. In view of disposal of main writ petition, the pending IA does not survive for consideration and hence dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-
Sd/- JUDGE