Writ Petition No. 27734 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10455 WP No. 27734 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27734 OF 2018 (S-REG) BETWEEN: SRI. Y.R. SURESH KUMAR S/O. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE. (BY SRI. M.R. SHAILENDRA, ADVOCATE (VC)) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION IN KARNATAKA, VISHWESVARAIAH CENTRE, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BOMMANAHALLI RANGE, BANGALORE. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10455 WP No. 27734 of 2018
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN NOT REGULARIZING THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARISATION WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE THE PETITIONER HAS COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE ON DAILY WAGE BASIS AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS, INCLUDING MONETARY BENEFITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the respondents in not regularising his service, as arbitrary, illegal and has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularisation with effect from the date he completed 10 years of service as daily wager and grant consequential service benefits. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10455 WP No. 27734 of 2018 2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed on temporary basis as a bill collector on 30.11.1989 on a consolidated pay at the Koramangala Group Gram Panchayat. Later the gram panchayat was merged into a larger notified area and became part of City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli which thereafter merged into Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. He contends that he was serving in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on daily wages and his appointment was not regularized. He therefore, filed W.P.No.1932/2008 and this Court in terms of an order dated 28.01.2009, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent No.2 to consider his representation dated 19.12.2007 and pass appropriate orders. He contends that the respondent No.2 by an order dated 22.12.2012 had regularised the services of about 62 bill collectors. Following this, the petitioner had made several representations requesting the respondent No.2 to regularise his services. Following the letters addressed to the Director of Municipal Administration for regularisation of service of several persons, similarly placed as petitioner, the respondent No.2 addressed a communication dated 09.08.2016 along with the list of workers who were - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10455 WP No. 27734 of 2018 working in local bodies seeking regularisation and the name of the petitioner was found at Sl.No.14 in the enclosure to the said communication. 3. A State level proceeding was held in the matter of regularisation of services of daily wage employees who were working in local bodies in various towns in the State. In the list of persons not eligible for regularisation, the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.12 and it was mentioned that the petitioner was not eligible for regularisation, as his appointment was not against a sanctioned post. The petitioner contends that it was contrary to the letter dated 09.08.2016 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1. Thereafter, he made a representation dated 14.09.2017 requesting the respondent No.2 to regularise his service, since similarly placed persons were regularised. However, no action was taken by the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner, though he was eligible in all respects. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner who was appointed on daily wages, continued in service even after - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10455 WP No. 27734 of 2018 panchayath had merged into the City Municipal Council which later merged into Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. He contends that the petitioner was in continuous service till he retired from the service and therefore he was entitled to be regularised in view of the continuous nature of work and that the petitioner was eligible to hold the post. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that the post in which the petitioner was appointed was not duly sanctioned and hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others [AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1806], the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation. 6. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as bill collector on temporary basis at Koramangala Group Gram panchayat on 30.11.1989. The post of bill collector is one of the sanctioned post in panchayat. The petitioner who was appointed on daily wages has continued in service after Koramangala Group Gram Panchayat merged into City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the respondent No.2 that the post of bill collector - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10455 WP No. 27734 of 2018 was not a sanctioned post in City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli. After City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli was merged into Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, the services of the petitioner was continued, till he retired. Therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot now contend that the post of bill collector was not sanctioned. Even otherwise, the respondent No.2 had recommended to the respondent No.1 that the petitioner was one of the persons who was entitled to be regularised and therefore, it cannot now lie in the mouth of respondent No.2 that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularised on the ground that he was not appointed against a sanctioned post. 7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized from the date he completed ten years of service. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent No.2 is directed to regularise the services of the petitioner and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of regularisation. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10455 WP No. 27734 of 2018 8. It is needless to mention that this order is based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as the petitioner has retired from service. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19