SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Kar) 38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, JJ.
The Director, Municipal Administration Department - Appellant
Versus
Sri. K.Ravi Son of Kenchaiah & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.4008 of 2019 (S-Reg)
Decided On : 03-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Laxminarayan, Additional Government Advocate

Headnote:

Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - Section 349 - Terms of resolutions - Post of Bill Collectors - Facts as stated are that petitioners were employed as Bill Collectors at Sub Gram Panchayat respectively in terms of resolutions - At time of their appointment as Bill Collectors there were no recruitment Rules that were framed specifying qualification for post of Bill Collector – Held, In instant case petitioners are recruited and are continued as Bill Collectors in Grama Panchayats based on corresponding resolutions of Panchayath - After these Grama Panchayats were merged into Notified Area Committees and subsequently into City Municipal Councils petitioners are continued as Bill Collectors in City Municipal Councils and are provided with equal pay as that of other Bill Collectors who were employed - Petitioners are continued in said City Municipal Councils as Bill Collectors in terms of official memorandum as such they have been working continuously from year till date - Appellant cannot now reject representation petitioners for regularization on ground that they did not possess requisite qualification as prescribed in Government Order when they were appointed as Bill Collectors - As matter of fact Rules prescribing staffing pattern were framed by Government for first time on subsequent to appointment of petitioners as Bill Collectors - Therefore claim of petitioners for regularization cannot be rejected on ground that they did not possess requisite qualification when they were first appointed - Yet another mitigating fact which furthers their case is that petitioners have during their service completed their Secondary School Leaving Certificate SSLC and therefore they possess requisite qualification - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

This Writ Appeal is filed by the respondent in Writ Petition Nos.58808 to 58809 of 2013 assailing the Order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and directed the respondent to reconsider the services of the petitioners and absorb/ regularize their services from the date of their appointment and on par with the similarly situated employees who were regularized as per the Government Order dated 22.12.2012 and extend all monetary benefits to the petitioners.

2. The facts as stated in W.P. Nos.58808 to 58809 of 2013 are that the petitioners were employed as Bill Collectors at Kacharakanahalli and Subramanyapura Gram Panchayat respectively in terms of the resolutions dated 30.10.1989 and 30.12.1992. At the time of their appointment as Bill Collectors, there were no recruitment Rules that were framed specifying the qualification for the post of Bill Collector. The Government of Karnataka in exercise of its powers under Section 349 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, issued a notification dated 29.12.1993 declaring the villages lying within Bengaluru District as Notified Area Committees with effect from 15.12.1993. Consequently, the Grama Panchayats where the petitioners were working were amalgamated into Devarajeevanahalli Notified Area Committee and Sarakki Notified Area Committee respectively. It is stated that the Government of Karnataka issued an order on 10.01.1994 determining the staffing pattern and mode of recruitment of employees in Panchayats including qualification to post of Bill Collectors. During the year 1995, the Government issued notification whereby the Notified Area Committees were constituted as City Municipal Councils and consequently, the Devarajeevanahalli Notified Area Committee in which the petitioner No.1 was working was merged with the City Municipal Council, Byatarayanapura while the Sarakki Notified Area Committee where the petitioner No.2 was working was amalgamated with the City Municipal Council, Pattanagere. The Government thereafter issued an official memorandum dated 19.04.1996 redeploying the staff of the erstwhile Notified Area Committees stipulating that the staff of the erstwhile Devarajeevanahalli and Sarakki Notified Areas Committees would be merged with the City Municipal Council, Byatarayanapura and Pattanagere respectively. As a result, the petitioners continued in the respective City Municipal Councils as Bill Collectors. The petitioners were provided with equal pay in terms of the orders dated 06.08.1999 and 30.09.1999.

3. The Government issued an order dated 15.11.2006, following the judgment of the Hon`ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 relating to regularization of daily wage employees working in various municipalities in the State of Karnataka. Pursuant to the said Government order, the service particulars of the petitioners were sent to the respondent No.2 by the respective City Municipal Councils for regularization of the services. When the case of the petitioners was not considered, the petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petition No.19823 of 2007 before this Court for consideration of their claim for regularization and this Court disposed off the writ petition by order dated 14.12.2007 directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. The appellant herein without considering the request of the petitioners, passed an order dated 28.04.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioners stating that they did not possess the requisite qualification as on the date of appointment as Bill Collectors in their respective Grama Panchayats. The petitioners were therefore, constrained to again challenge the aforesaid endorsement in Writ Petition No.13532 of 2008. This Court in terms of the order dated 11.06.200

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top