IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION Nos.19951-20067 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VENKATARAMANAMMA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. MR VENKATESH S/O KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3. MR PENCHALAIAH S/O NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 4. SMT NARAYANAMMA W/O MR VENKAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 5. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 6. SMT CHINNAMMA W/O MELOKODAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 7. MR AYODI S/O MR GOPAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 8. MR R RAMAIAH S/O MR THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 9. MR B RAMAIAH S/O MR CHIKKAHANUMATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 10. MR CHIKKANNA S/O MR HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 11. MR KEMPAIAH S/O MR THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 11 ARE WORKING AT OFFICE OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
12. MR MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O MR MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 13. MR RAJA S/O MR CHINNARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 14. MR M MUNIRAJU S/O MR MUTHYALAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 15. MR TIRUMALLESHA S/O MR GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 16. MR A DEVARAJULU S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 17. MR MANJU S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 18. MR K AMARANARAYANA S/O MR KODANDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 19. SMT KOTESHWARI W/O MR A NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 20. MR A NARASAIAH S/O MR OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 21. MR C RAJA S/O MR MARANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 22. SMT KATAMMA W/O MR NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 23. SMT SUMATHI K P S/O MR KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 24. MR RAMACHANDRA G P S/O MR PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 25. MR SOMASHEKAR S/O MR DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 26. MR RAVI S/O NARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 27. MR H VARADHARAJU S/O MR HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 28. MR SUBBAIAH V S/O MR VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 29. SMT ALESHAMMA W/O MR NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 30. MR NAGARAJU S/O MR KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 31. SMT MARIYAMMA W/O MR MACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 32. MR LAKSHMAN S/O MR MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 33. MR PATHAPPA S/O MR NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 34. MR NARAYANA S/O MR BHAVAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 35. MR SRINIVAS S/O MR GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 36. SMT H ANJINAMMA W/O MR SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 37. SMT S ANJINAMMA W/O MR SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 38. MR SUBBAIAH S/O MR SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 39. SMT ADIYAMMA W/O MR RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 40. MR RAMESH S/O MR. PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.12 TO 40 ARE WORKING AT: OFFICE OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, PULIKESHINAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 005.
41. SMT C TIRUPALAMMA W/O MR RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 42. MR S GURUVAIAH S/O MR BALA GURUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 43. MR VENKATARAJU S/O MR KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 44. MR SYED MUSTHAK AHAMED S/O MR SYED KASHIM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 45. SMT JANAKI RAM W/O MR NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 46. MR K VENKATESH S/O MR KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 47. MR DEVADHANAM S/O MR RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 48. MR CHINNAIAH S/O MR THIMMAPAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 49. MR R RAVI S/O MR RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 50. MR DYANIAL S/O MR S VENKATESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 51. MR E RAVANAIAH S/O MR RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.40 TO 51 ARE WORKING AT: OFFICE OF THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, K.G.HALLI BANGALORE-560 045.
52. MR RAMALINGAPPA S/O MR MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 53. MR NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O MR JADLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 54. SMT ARATHI W/O MR N CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.52 TO 54 ARE WORKING AT: OFFICE OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, H.B.R. LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 045.
55. SMT RAVANAMMA W/O MR LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 56. MR RAVANAIAH S/O MR RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 57. MR MARAPPA S/O MR NAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 58. MR LAKSHMAIAH S/O MR NAGARAJU Y AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 59. MR NAGARAJU S/O MR NARASIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 60. MR GOPAL S/O MR VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 61. SMT KRISHNAMMA W/O MR BALARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 62. SMT MARIYAMMA W/O MR MUTHIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 63. SMT DHANAMMA W/O MR NANJUNDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 64. MR G NARAYANSWAMY S/O MR GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 65. SMT KAMAKSHAMMA W/O MR KONDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 66. MR KESHAVA S/O MR SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 67. MR KUMAR S/O MR NAGARAJU Y AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 68. SMT V LATHA W/O MR KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 69. SMT SATHYAMMA W/O BALARAJA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 70. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O MR NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 71. MR GOVINDA S/O MR CHINNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 72. MR NARASIMALU S/O MR THIRUPAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 73. SMT VENKATAMMA W/O MR RAVANAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 74. SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O MR KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 75. SMT JAYAMMA W/O MR KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 76. MR. KARAGAPPA S/O MR. DODDAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 77. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O MR. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 78. MR. H. KRISHNAPPA S/O. MR. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 79. MR. NANJUNDA S/O. MR. ANKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 80. MR. MUNIYAPPA S/O. MR. GAVIRANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 81. MR. MUNIRAJU .K S/O. MR. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 82. SMT. PARVATHAMMA S/O. MR. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 83. MR. B. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O. MR. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 84. MR. ANJINAPPA S/O. MR. PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 85. MR. KRISHANA P.
S/O. MR. PUTHALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 86. SMT. D. ACHAMMA W/O. MR. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 87. MR. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. MR. MUTHULU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 88. MR. SUBBAIAH S/O. MR. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 89. MR. K. NARAYANAPPA S/O. MR. KADRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 90. MR. HEMANNA S/O. MR. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 91. MR. A. NAGABHUSHAN S/O. MR. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 92. MR. SRINIVASULU S/O. MR. CHINNAKONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 93. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI W/O. MR. MUNIRATHANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 94. SMT. MANJULA W/O. MR. K. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 95. MR. KRISHNA S/O. MR. MUNIYA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 96. MR. DASHARATHAN S/O. MR. APPADORAI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 97. SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O. MR. MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 98. SMT. C. JYOTHI W/O. MR. LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 99. SMT. KUPAMMA W/O. MR. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 100. MR. R. PARUSHURAM S/O. MR. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 101. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. MR. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 102. MR. K. MUNIRAJU S/O. MR. K.T. KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 103. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O. MR. MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 104. MR. B. NARASIMHA S/O. MR. BACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 105. MR. N. RAJU S/O. MR. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 106. MR. RAJA S/O. MR. MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 107. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. MR. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 108. MR.RANGAPPA S/O. MR. ANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 109. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O. MR. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 110. MR. NARAYANAPPA S/O. MR. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 111. MR. V. RAMAPPA S/O. MR. VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 112. MR. THIMMAIAH S/O. MR. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 113. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O. MR. HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 114. SMT. C. LALITHA W/O. MR. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 115. MR. NARASIMAHAMURTHY S/O. MR. NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 116. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. MR. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 117. MR. NAGARAJU A S/O. MR. ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SL. NOS.55 TO 117 ARE WORKING AT OFFICE OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, MARUTHI SEVA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560033. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560002.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 & R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1, VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 21.02.2018 along with the communication dated 15.03.2018 at Annexure-A.
2. The petitioners who were all appointed as Poura Karmika on various dates, which are indicated in Annexure-L while sending the recommendation by respondent No.2 for regularization of their service on 27.08.2014. From perusal of Annexure-A, it is noticed that there is no discussion about each of the petitioners and others with reference to criteria laid down in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 to the extent of one time regularization of such of those employees, who have completed 10 years of service and other criteria. In other words, it is non-examination of service particulars read with the criteria stipulated in the Umadevi’s decision. Therefore, on the ground of non-application of mind in issuing the order dated 21.02.2018 read with 15.03.2018 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Union of India Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290 at para 18 to 20 held 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 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. We also clarify that regularization, 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 regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
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 regularization 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, regularize 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 regularization 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 regularization, 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 10-4-2006 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 regularization 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 regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointement. 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 regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization 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 regularization in terms of the above direction in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure.”
20. The judgment of this Court in Umadevi (3) does not preclude the claims of employees who seek regularization 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 regularization 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 regularization of employees who have completed the requisite period of service is to be considered as a continuation of the one-time exercise.”
3. In view of the principle laid down in the Umadevi’s case read with the aforesaid decision, respondent No.1 is hereby directed to examine and take a decision whether each of the petitioner is entitled for one time regularization in terms of Umadevi’s decision or not, while considering their eligibility with reference to four criteria mentioned in the Umadevi’s case.
4. In the event of any service particulars of the petitioners are required to be examined by respondent No.1, in such circumstances, respondent No.1 could ask respondent No.2 to furnish Annexure-L dated 27.08.2014, which reveals the date of entry into service and date of completion of 10 years of service. Further, if any records are required, it is for respondent No.1 to get and take a decision. Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pass a detailed order considering each of the petitioners’ service particulars read with Umadevi’s decision read with Union of India’s case cited supra.
5. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, writ petitions stand allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM