Partly allowed

Shri. Mabusab @ Mehaboobsab S/O Razaksab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2022WP/105176/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed for regularization of services and financial benefits, the High Court directed the State and Municipal Administration to consider the proposal recommending regularization within three months, referring to the Umadevi judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the proposal dated 08.08.2007 sent by Respondent 3 at Annexure-B and pass an appropriate order within three months.

Shri. Mabusab @ Mehaboobsab S/O Razaksab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 105176 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 105176 OF 2017 (S-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. MABUSAB @ MEHABOOBSAB S/O RAZAKSAB AGE:59 YEARS, OCC:GARDENER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOPPAL TQ AND DIST:KOPPAL.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED FOR SRI. A S PATIL ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL.

¶15

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOPPAL, DIST:KOPPAL REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.M.H.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE DISPENSED WITH OF R4)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO:- DIRECT THE RESPONDNETS NO.1 AND 2 TO REGULARIZE THE SERCIE OF THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE HAS COMPLETED HIS 10 YEARS OF SERCICE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO EXTEND ALL THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS IN HIS FAVOUR BY CONSIDERING THE PROPOSAL SENT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED:08.08.2007 AS PER ANNEXURE-B.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 105176 of 2017

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner claims that he was appointed on daily wages as Gardener by respondent No.4 on 21.10.1986 and he was extended the benefit of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The respondent No.3 has sent proposal to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 recommending to regularize the services of the petitioner and other employees under super numerary posts. Petitioner’s grievance is that the proposal sent by the respondent No.3 is not considered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are under an obligation to consider the proposal sent by the respondent No.3 recommending regularization of services of the petitioner in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS reported in (2006)4 SCC

¶24

¶25

Learned AGA on instructions submits that

¶26

proposal sent by the respondent No.3 will be considered in accordance with law if reasonable time is granted.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 105176 of 2017

¶29

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ

¶30

petition directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the proposal dated 08.082007 sent by the respondent No.3 at Annexure-B and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

¶33

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Shri. Mabusab @ Mehaboobsab S/O Razaksab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mabusab @ Mehaboobsab S/O Razaksab v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt.Fakkirawwa W/O Santosh Goravanakolla Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Prema D/O Ramanna Vaddar, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

The Town Municipal Council, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri.Mahantesh Mariyappa Hadimani Vs the Divisional Controller

H.T. Indrachala S/O Late Sanna Thimmappa Vs the Management of Nekrtc

N M Kittur Vs the Managing Director