S,B,Gowdar a Eshwargouda Andanigowdar & Ors. v. Secretary, PCA & RD Bank Ltd.

(By Shri Mahesh Wodeyar, Adv.) AND: Secretary, PCA & RD Bank Ltd., At Mundgodu, Dist: Uttar Kannada.

2. The Member Secretary, Common Cadre Committee, Petitioners For PCA & RD Bank Employees, Alur Venkatrao Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore5600 18. Respondents (By Shri M,M.Hiremath, Adv. for Ri & R2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to quash the impugned order dated 3.4.2009 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in “B” Group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Petitioners in these petitions have sought quashing the order dated 3rd April 2009 passed by second respondent vide Annexure A, in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Further, petitioners have sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are working in the respondent No.1 Bank since 1994 and 1997 as clerk cum typist and sepoy/peon respectively on daily wage basis. They have worked more than ten years continuously and without any break. Till today, they are working on daily wage basis. When such being the position, the second respondent directed the first respondent to terminate the services of the petitioners. The said order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.43220-43222/2002 and an interim order of stay was granted until further orders, reserving liberty to the respondents to seek for modification of interim order, vide Annexure E to the writ petitions. Thereafter, the said matter had come up for hearing on 29th July 2008 and this Court, disposed of the matter with a direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioners, for regularization in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Basavarajappa Vs. The Common Cadre Committee for the employees of the Primary Co-op. Agricultural and Rural Development Banks, in the State of Karnataka and others in Writ Petition No.28280/2002, disposed of on 251h September 2006. Subsequently, this 4 Court quashed Annexure D therein only in so far as it related to petitioners therein and directed the second respondent to consider the case of petitioners therein for regularization, in the light of the said judgment and till the second respondent considers the case of the petitioners, the petitioners shall not be discontinued or disturbed from the services of the first respondent Bank and the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After disposal of the writ petitions, the petitioners have submitted a detailed instead of considering their request for their services in the light of representation. regularization of direction issued by this Court, following the Apex Court decision, cited supra, vide Annexure F, as referred above, they have issued an endorsement dated 3rd April 2009 vide Annexure A, In the said endorsement, instead of considering the request of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in the light unilaterally. 4 5 of the direction issued by this Court, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court, vide Annexure F, referred above, they have taken a decision not to regularize the services of the petitioners stating that the petitioners are appointed on daily wage basis and accordingly, relieved the petitioners on 15th April 2009 vide Annexure G. The respondents further observed that there is no scope for regularization of the services of the petitioners nor any document as such has been produced before the authority to consider their request. Therefore, they declined to consider the case of petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent dated 3n1 April 2009 vide Annexure A, issued without affording opportunity to petitioner and in view of the non compliance of the directions issued by this Court dated 20th July 2009, in writ petition No.43220/2002 at Annexure F, the petitioners have presented these two petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. / .———— 6

3. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petitions and perused the their case, to consider impugned endorsement issued by the respondents and the direction issued by this Court vide Annexure F referred above. This Court has specifically directed the respondents following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Secretary of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1. If the petitioners are working in the existing posts since ten years, the services of such persons may be considered for regularization in the light of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in these petitions have rendered their services in the existing posts for more than ten years. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor appreciated except stating that as on the date, the Common Cadre Authority came into force, these petitioners were appointed on daily wage and therefore, entitled for 7 regularization of their services and issued the impugned endorsement. Such reasoning given by the respondent cannot be sustained. The said endorsement has been issued, unilaterally, without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. If sufficient opportunity had been afforded to these petitioners, then, they would have made out a case with reference to the Apex Court decision and the order passed by this Court that they have been working in the respondent department since ten years in the existing posts in the cadre of clerk cum typist, sepoy/peon, Therefore, respectively. in view of non affording of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and for non compliance of the principles of natural justice, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. short, it is not a speaking order. In

4. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as referred above, the writ petitions filed by petitioners are allowed in part. 8 The impugned endorsement dated 3rd April 2009 issued by second respondent vide Annexure A is hereby set aside; The matter stands remitted back to the second respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, having regard to the observations made by this Court during the course of its order and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3UDG BMV*