JAYANTHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKALABIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these petitions have made a prayer to set aside Annexure-G dated 20th August 2014 rejecting the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. They have also sought for a direction to the respondents to regularise their services with effect from the date of completion of ten years of their service and also to pay the salary and other consequential benefits from the date of completion of their ten years of service.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working with the respondents on daily wage basis for about 20- 30 years; whereas initial appointment varies from one petitioner to other right from 10th November 1984, 1986, etc. Having rendered services with the respondents for such a along time, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not regularising their services is contrary to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners earlier had approached this court in Writ Petition Nos.15483-15565 of 2004 for relief of mandamus and by its order dated 16th April 2004 the said writ petitions were disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation within a period of three months. In compliance of directions in the said writ petitions, an endorsement has been issued to the petitioners stating that in similar set of cases which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.3112-3114 of 2001 and till the disposal of the said case, the direction of this Court in Writ Petitions No.15483-15565 of 2004 cannot be complied with. Some of the persons who are similarly situated like the petitioners serving in different departments preferred writ petitions No.39117-176 of 1999 claiming regularisation of their services and this Court by its order dated 15th December 1999 granted relief with a direction to regularise their services. The learned counsel submits that these petitioners also stand on a similar footing and they are entitled for regularisation of their services by granting similar relief. He further submits that in respect of the very same department where the petitioners are working some of the employees have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.3338 of 2014 in which a direction was issued to the authorities to pass the order regularising the services of the employees (74 in number) which will now be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two moths from the date of receipt of the order. Hence, the learned counsel submits that petitioners herein are also entitled for similar benefits.

(3.) After the disposal of the said Special Leave Petition, the representations of the petitioners made pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petitions No.15483-15565 of 2004 was considered and rejected as per Annexure-G dated 20th August, 2014. The impugned action in rejecting the case of the petitioners is contrary to law. Hence, the same is to be set aside and case of the petitioners is to be considered for regularisation of their services. In support of his case, the learned counsel also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS reported in, 2006 4 SCC 1 and referred to paragraph 53 of the judgment.