Dismissed

Smt.Shakuntala D/O. Laxman Mansur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022WP/147241/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the non-regularization of contract deputation services. Court held that per Umadevi judgment, no right to regularization exists. Dismissed writ, noting petitioner entitled to wages/agreement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner remains entitled to wages and statutory benefits as per the agreement between parties.

Smt.Shakuntala D/O. Laxman Mansur Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

W.P. No.147241 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 147241 OF 2020 (S-REG)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
VISHAL PATTIHAL
NINGAPPA Location:
PATTIHAL DHARWAD
Date:
2022.09.07
10:51:51
+0530

¶10

SMT. SHAKUNTALA D/O. LAXMAN MANSUR, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT, R/O: HOSAYALLAPUR, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SHRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY PRL. SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BANGALURU-01.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DIST: DHARWAD-580 001.

¶16

THE MANAGER, KARNATAKA MAHARSHI VALMIKI SCHEDULE TRIBE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, DHARWAD DIST: DHARWAD-580 001.

¶17

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA MAHARSHI VALMIKI SCHEDULE TRIBE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BANGALURU-560 001.

¶18

M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISES, 5^TH CROSS, HALAHALLI, MANDYA-571404 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI P.P. HITTALAMANI, S.AMARNATH

¶20

& PRUTHA BHARATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 RESPONDENT NO.5 - DELETED)

¶21

¶22

W.P. No.147241 of 2020

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the communication issued by the Managing Director, fourth respondent-Corporation to the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department. The same pertains to the opinion that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized in fourth respondent-Corporation. She has further sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to regularize her services and give all service benefits that an employee of fourth respondent-Corporation is entitled to.

¶27

The services of the petitioner has been availed by fourth respondent-Corporation as a contract employee through a Man Power Supply Contractor. She has sought for regularization of her services with fourth respondent-

¶28

¶29

W.P. No.147241 of 2020

¶30

Corporation. As it was opined that her request cannot be granted, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶31

During the pendency of the writ petition, fourth respondent-Corporation has written a letter to the Contractor through whom her services was outsourced, as the services of the petitioner is not required any more, the same is returned back. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said endorsement also.

¶32

Admittedly, the petitioner is not an employee of fourth respondent-Corporation. She is on the rolls of a Man Power Supply Contractor, who has deputed her services to fourth respondent-Corporation. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006)4 SCC 1, the petitioner has no right to seek regularization of her services with fourth respondentCorporation. Further, fourth respondent-Corporation is of the opinion that her services are no longer required and has accordingly communicated the same to the Agency through

¶33

¶34

W.P. No.147241 of 2020

¶35

which her services have been taken on contract basis. There is no error in the same.

¶36

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. However, it is needless to state that the petitioner is entitled to wages and other statutory benefits as per the agreement between the concerned parties and if the same is denied to the petitioner, she is always at liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding to recover the same.

¶37

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Vnp* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Smt.Shakuntala D/O. Laxman Mansur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Shakuntala D/O. Laxman Mansur 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

Sobati Avappa Alias Havappa S/O Parasappa Alias Peerappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Darupati D/O. Fakirappa Matf Vs Women and Child Welfare Dept.

B. T. Bandiwaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Ghataprabha Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niy Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I

Sri Kallappa S Kammar Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaya S/O Bandu Awale Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.