Allowed

Town Municipal Council, v. Smt.Gangamma

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2020WA/101473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed writ appeals against a lower court order that directed the respondent municipality to regularize the services of workmen (pourakarmikas) and pay consequential benefits. Relying on Umadevi, the High Court held Courts should not issue general regularization directions without examining financial implications and adherence to constitutional recruitment rules. The general regulariza

What did the court decide?

Set aside general directions to regularize workmen services and pay consequential benefits; writ petitions rendered infructuous.

Town Municipal Council, Vs Smt.Gangamma — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT APPEAL Nos.101473/2016 & 100236-248/2017 (GM-TEN)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KAMPLI, BALLARI DIST: 583132

¶10

THE CORRECT NOMENCLATURE: THE CHIEF OFFICER, THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KAMPLI, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

SMT.GANGAMMA, W/O SHRI SUNKANNA @ SHRI SUNKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶13

SMT.SHARADHAMMA @ SMT.SHARADHA, W/O SHRI SUNKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶16

SHRI.YESU @ YESAPPA, S/O SHRI SUDHARSHANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶17

SHRI.MAREPPA, S/O SHRI SANJIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.5, NELLUDI KOTTAL, BALLARI-583132.

¶18

SMT.NAGAMMA, W/O SHRI KUMARSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶19

SMT.SAVITHRAMMA @ SAVITHRI, W/O SHRI RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶20

SHRI.H. RAMESH, S/O SHRI MAREPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10,

¶21

¶22

BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶23

SHRI.SANNA MAREPPA @ SHRI MAREPPA SANNA, S/O SHRI NARSAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶24

SHRI.S.THIPPANNA @ THIPPESH, S/O SHRI SANJANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶25

SHRI.ANJINI @ ANJENAPPA, S/O SHRI PALLAIAHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶26

SHRI.SHIVAPPA, S/O SHRI OBALESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶27

SMT.UMAVATHI @ SMT. UMA, W/O SHRI VIRUPANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.10, GANDHINAGARA,

¶28

¶29

MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶30

SMT.ANANTHAMMA,, W/O SHRI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶31

SHRI. H. RAVI, S/O SHRI HULUGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.9, GANDHINAGARA, MUDDAPURA NO.10, BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶33

DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V.V. TOWERS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. .. RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI D.M.MALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R9 AND R11 TO R14, NOTICE TO R10 SERVED, SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GA FOR R15 TO R16)

¶35

THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2016, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUUDGE IN W.P.No.112397/2015 AND W.P.Nos.112424-

¶36

¶37

112436/2015 BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶38

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

These intra court writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.112397/2015 and connected matters dated 11.03.2016 whereby the writ petitions filed by the workmen are allowed quashing the Notification dated 16.09.2015 issued by the appellant herein calling for tender relating to supply of man power. The learned Single Judge further directed the respondents therein to regularize the services of the workmen and other similarly situated employees working under the appellant within a time frame and pay them all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary and pensionary benefits.

¶41

The writ petitions were preferred by the workmen contending that they are Pourakarmikas employed by the appellant for the collection and removal

¶42

¶43

of Municipal Solid Waste, Street Sweeping, Cleaning of roads, footpaths, open spaces, cleaning drains, house to house collection of garbage etc., commonly known as Solid Waste Management. It was the grievance of the workmen that the representations/demands made by them with the concerned authorities to regularize their services not being considered, they were constrained to file writ petitions challenging the Notification issued by respondent No.2 calling for tender in providing the man power relating to the work of Pourakarmikas. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions as afore mentioned. Hence, respondent No.2/Town Municipal Council, Kampli, is before this Court.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the sole relief sought by the workmen in challenging the tender notification dated 16.09.2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent ought not to have been enlarged by the learned Single Judge expanding the scope

¶45

¶46

of relief sought for, in directing regularization of the services of the petitioners with consequential benefits and the other pensionary benefits quashing the Notification impugned. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the division bench ruling of this Court at Kalaburagi Bench dated 14.06.2016 in W.A.Nos.200391 & 200393/2015 and connected matters to contend that no positive direction of regularization ought to have been issued by the learned Single Judge contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE

¶47

OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI¹ .

¶48

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶49

appearing for the State Government adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners sailing with the appellant.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶51

respondents-workmen justifying the order of the learned

¶52

1 AIR 2006 SC 1806

¶53

¶54

Single Judge submitted that to do complete justice, the learned Single Judge has directed to regularize the services of the workmen and other similarly situated persons within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order with consequential service benefits and pensionary benefits. The workmen/Pourakarmikas/Scavengers are working with the appellant-Municipal Council and their representations for regularization has remained unconsidered for years together. The concept of social justice which the Constitution of India has engrafted indeed is to mitigate the sufferings of the deprived sections of the Society, the Pourakarmikas-petitioners who had been working for more than two decades as scavengers belonging to Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe are entitled to their right of life and to enjoy the life with dignity. Considering these aspects, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires to be confirmed.

¶55

¶56

We have given our anxious consideration to the

¶57

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶58

It is not in dispute that the respondentsworkmen had challenged the Notification issued by the appellant calling for tender to provide the man power i.e., scavengers/Pourakarmikas. Considering the very same issue with reference to Section 13 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, (for short ‘the Act’) the division bench in W.A.Nos.200391 & 200393/2015 and allied matters supra in the context of the learned Single Judge issuing directions to the State to regularize all daily wage sweepers, scavengers/Pourakarmikas observed that no general direction which has financial implications for the State could be issued by the Court ordinarily. Before issuing a general direction, the stand of the State should have been considered; moreover, such a general direction

¶59

¶60

is clearly contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI supra.

¶61

We apt to quote paragraph 34 of the said

¶62

judgment which reads as under:

¶63

“34. xxx xxx

¶64

Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an

¶65

¶66

engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an

¶67

¶68

employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.”

¶69

In the light of UMADEVI’ s case stated supra,

¶70

we are of the considered opinion that the general directions issued by the learned Single Judge directing the

¶71

¶72

respondents therein to regularize the services of the workmen/Pourakarmikas within a time frame along with consequential benefits certainly has final implications on the State exchequer. In such circumstances, issuing such general directions without examining the financial implications and its effect would not be appropriate for the Court while considering the challenge made to the Notification dated 16.09.2015. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to regularize the services of the workmen and other similarly situated employees working under the appellant with consequential benefits etc.,

¶73

However, it is submitted by both the learned

¶74

counsel appearing for the parties that the relief sought for quashing of the Notification as well as the general direction to regularize the services of the workmen being stayed by this Court vide an ad interim order dated 04.07.2017, the writ petition so far as the challenge made

¶75

¶76

to the Notification now has rendered infructuous. Accordingly, we set aside the general directions issued by the writ court to regularize the services of the workmen and other similarly situated workmen working under the appellant with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and pensionary benefits.

¶77

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶78

All the pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶79

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶80

(SD/-) JUDGE

¶81

Jm/-

Town Municipal Council, v. Smt.Gangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Town Municipal Council, v. Smt.Gangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Drivers Colony and Nagarika Vs Urban Development Authority

Sri.Parashuram S/O Yellappa Koti @ Kyoti Vs the Karnataka Institute of

Shivayogappa Nimbanna Anaji, Vs Karnataka Public Service Commission

Rajan S/O Shanthinath Huibatte Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Maruti Vs the Management of