O SHRI v. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB WP No. 2946 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2946 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. ANURADHA K W/O SHRI. V. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF THE THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE WATER SHED DEVELOPLMENT DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR AGRICULTURAL COMPLEX BANSHANKARI BANGALORE - 560 070 (BY SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE LALBAGH ROAD BANGALORE-560 027 Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB WP No. 2946 of 2021 3. THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE WATER SHED DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2ND FLOOR, AGRICULTURAL COMPLEX BANSHANKARI BANGALORE 560070 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
been granted relief by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10550/2021 (S-KSAT) connected with W.P.No.18762/2021 (S-KSAT) between B.N.SURESH BABU vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS, which is disposed off by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 25.03.2022. He points out that his client has been a victim of a spate of litigations only because of unfair stand taken by the official respondents and therefore, this court should come to her rescue. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents resist the petition repelling the submission of petitioner and justifying the Tribunal's order. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB WP No. 2946 of 2021 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has served the respondents for about 38 years. Somehow, in a spate of cases, justice has eluded the poor petitioner whose case squarely matches the fact matrix of Coordinate Bench judgment in the case of Mr.B.N.Suresh Babu supra. The contention of learned AGA that no relief can be granted inasmuch as there was no post against which the petitioner has put in service, is liable to be rejected, regard being had to 38 years of service which she has put in. In such a circumstance, the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cannot be banked upon. 5. The Coordinate Bench in Suresh Babu supra, has granted the relief as under: " (a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.01.2020 passed in Application - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB WP No. 2946 of 2021 the same No.6116/2016 suffers from error apparent on the face of the record; (Annexure-D) as (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant in the post of Second Division Assistant with effect from 01.07.1995 as has been done in the case of Sri. Cheluvaraju and Hanumanthappa and grant all the consequential benefits such as arrears of salary, increment, revision of pay scale, seniority etc from 01.07.1995." The fact matrix of the petitioner's case substantially matches that of Suresh Babu. There is one small difference that enures to the benefit of petitioner: petitioner has fought several legal battles. In some of them, direction was issued to consider her case for regularization. However, with one or the other unsustainable cause, the request was negatived. Therefore, no purpose would be served by just directing fresh consideration of her case for regularization. This is one case wherein a direction for regularization is warranted. In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed; impugned order of Tribunal is quashed. Petitioner's subject - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB WP No. 2946 of 2021 Application having been favoured, a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents to regularize her services with effect from the date she completed ten years of service and to grant to her all service and monetary benefits on that basis. Time for compliance is three months within which the respondents shall file the compliance report to the Registrar General of this Court, failing which petitioner may move an appropriate application before this Court itself for implementation of this order and for exemplary costs. Now no costs. Pending Interlocutory Application does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
Arguments
(BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2020 (ANNEXURE-T), PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NO.4340/2016 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION, AS PER THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 30.06.2007 ( ANNEXURE - M), ON PAR WITH THAT OF THE OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED TEN EMPLOYEES, WHOSE SERVICES HAVE BEEN REGULARIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT SERVICES HAS BEEN REGULARIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND TO PAY ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC. , THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB WP No. 2946 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) Petitioner, a gentle lady has been working since last 37 years on daily wage basis, is grieving before the Writ Court against State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 12.11.2020 whereby, her Application No.4340/2016 seeking regularization of services has been negatived. 2. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE: 2.1 Petitioner gained entry to service on daily wage basis since 1.3.1982; she was declared a monthly rated employee vide order dated 12.1.1990. Along with petitioner, others similarly placed monthly rated employees came to be regularized vide order dated 9.2.1994. Subsequently, her services came to be absorbed as Second Division Assistant vide order dated 22.11.1995. In the seniority list of SDAs dated 26.2.1997, she figured - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB WP No. 2946 of 2021 at Sl.No.304. Her juniors having been promoted in September 2001, another seniority list came to be prepared on 8.7.2003 wherein, she figured at Sl.No.312. 2.2 Petitioner's representations dated 13.9.2003, 22.9.2003, 27.9.2004 & 18.1.2005 seeking promotion ultimately ended in an endorsement dated 2.2.2005 that some enquiry is pending against her and therefore, promotion cannot be granted. By her representation dated 19.2.2005, she had sought for information relating to the enquiry and that was met with a stony silence. Petitioner filed Application No.4338/2005 challenging the endorsement and seeking a direction for promotion. 2.3 During the pendency of the above Application, the government passed orders dated 4.6.1999 and 10.2.2006 whereby, petitioner was reverted from the post of Second Division Assistant to the status of daily wage employee. Further, a direction was made to recover salary from her which she had earned after regularization. She challenged the same in Application No.1395/2006. During - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB WP No. 2946 of 2021 the pendency of the Application, 2nd respondent passed an order dated 30.6.2007 regularizing the services of other employees who too were made to suffer denigration as the petitioner. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Application vide order dated 28.6.2013, eventually resulting into W.P.No.39150/2013 which came to be disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to make representation for regularization. 2.4 Petitioner's representation for regularization came to be negatived vide endorsement dated 28.1.2014. Petitioner filed Application No.2057/2014 challenging the same and a direction was given to consider petitioner's grievance. Despite that, the respondents vide order dated 20.4.2016 negatived her claim. Petitioner filed Application No.4340/2016 and the Tribunal stayed the order of demotion. However, ultimately, vide order dated 12.11.2020, even this Application came to be rejected. That is how, the petitioner is before the Writ Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9944-DB WP No. 2946 of 2021 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that when nine other similar circumstanced daily wages have been regularized in service, after recalling their earlier regularization orders, the same benefit needs to be granted to her also on the principle of parity. He points out that one of such similarly circumstanced daily wagers was Mr.Suresh Babu who has