Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 60
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA V., S/O A.VEERAIAH - Appellant
Vs.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDINGS BENGALURU - Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.9310 OF 2016, C/W WRIT PETITION No.36565 OF 2013, WRIT PETITION No.22964 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION No.16373, 62411 OF 2016, WRIT PETITION No.12439 OF 2021
Decided On : 28-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. RAVI SHANKAR D.R., SENIOR ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA, SRI D. ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE
Point of Law : Regularization of service - State cannot now direct the University to consider the cases of the petitioners under the Daily Wage Welfare Act.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 226 ,12, 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) - Seeking approval of regularization - Benefit of regularization - Petitioners 20 in number were all appointed Group-D cadre - 6th qualifications that petitioners possess range from standard to Graduation - These petitioners were appointed in University Library, Finance department, Hostels run by the University, Estate Section, Students Welfare Department, Garden Section and in several other places. One Sri H.B.Ramaswamy – petitioner No.7 discontinued and petitioner No.17 – Two petitioners, all other petitioners are working in University without any break from the dates of their initial engagement.
Finding of the Court: Granting arrears of wages to petitioners in event of their regularization will mulct either State or the University and then place State or University under financial stress - Petitioners shall not be entitled to any back-wages once benefit of regularization is granted to petitioners in terms of recommendations/proposals made by University from time to time - Petitioners who were all appointed by University close to 20 years ago, have continued to work, in and for the University without any break, and never on strength of any interim order granted by any judicial for a - In their heydays these petitioners have toiled to serve the University on receiving even paltry sums as salary - Need of these employees by University is time and again recognised in communications/proposals for such regularization - If their cases are not considered at this juncture, it would be an arbitrary action, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and would result in leaving the employees in lurch.
Result: Writ Petitions are allowed.
ORDER :
The petitioners in the cluster of these petitions call in question an order dated 01-02-2016 which denies the benefit of regularization to the petitioners and have consequentially sought a direction for consideration of their claims for regularization. Since all the employees are working in different Departments of the Bangalore University (‘the University’ for short) and the challenge and direction sought being common, these petitions are taken up together and considered in this common order.
2. Adumbrated in brief, the factual background as projected by the petitioners are as follows:
Writ Petition No.9310 of 2016:
(a) The petitioners 20 in number were all appointed between 28-12-1996 and 09-06-2000 in a Group-D cadre. The 6th qualifications that the petitioners possess range from standard to Graduation. These petitioners were appointed in the University Library, Finance department, Hostels run by the University, Estate Section, Students Welfare Department, Garden Section and in several other places. One Sri H.B.Ramaswamy – petitioner No.7 discontinued and petitioner No.17 – Ramesha is dead. Barring these two petitioners, all the other petitioners are working in the University without any break from the dates of their initial engagement.
Writ Petition No.36565 of 2013:
(b) This petition consists of two employees who were engaged on 2-07-1998 and 1-01-1999 respectively as Group-D employees and are working in the services of the University right from their initial engagement without any break and continued to work in different departments even as on date.
Writ Petition No.22964 of 2015:
(c) This petition concerns with one employee. The petitioner in this writ petition was appointed on 13-01-1998 as a Group-D employee. The petitioner does possess a post-graduate qualification in Master of Arts. It is the claim of the University that the petitioner worked from 13-01-1998 and his services are discontinued from 29-05-2019 after about 22 years of service.
Writ Petition No.16373 of 2016:
(d) This petition concerns 9 employees who were all appointed between 15-11-1996 and 1-08-1999. Two of the petitioners possess the qualification of M.Phil and post graduation in Master of Arts and others are 4th, 5th, 7th or 10th standard. All these petitioners except one Sri Shankare Gowda.K.N. whom the University claims to have discharged are working from the dates of their initial engagement and continued to work even as on date.
Writ Petition No.62411 of 2016:
(e) This petition concerns 14 employees who are all engaged between the dates 17-02-1997 and 2-11-1999 as Group-D employees. All the petitioners in this petition are working without any break from the dates of their initial engagement and continued to work even as on date in different Departments of the University and are all qualified to work in Group-D cadre.
Writ Petition No.12439 of 2021:
(f) This petition concerns 5 employees engaged between the dates 02-10-1996 and 08-02-2000 in a Group-D cadre. Petitioner No.5 possesses a post-graduation in Master of Arts. The petitioners are working in the University without any break from the dates of their initial engagement and continued to work even as on date in different Departments of the University.
3. All the petitioners thus, in terms of what is narrated hereinabove, have completed service in the University ranging from 20 to 25 years and are all aged between 43 and 57 years. During subsistence of engagement of their services, all the petitioners, most of whom had completed 10 years of service, The Apex Court rendered its judgment in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS v. UMADEVI(3) & OTHERS, (2006) 4 SCC 1 on 10-04-2006. The entire spectrum of nuances of engagement to posts – irregular, illegal or back door were all considered by the Apex Court and certain parameters for the purpose of regularization of such employees were laid down. Certain proceedings also took place in the respondent/University pursuant to the judgment of the
