Smt. Sudha W/O Late Gajanana Bhat v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 May 2023WP/103633/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition seeks regularization of deceased husband's daily wage service and appointment of daughter on compassionate grounds. Court allowed request settling benefits under Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act 2012 but dismissed prayer for regularization/compassionate appointment as no fresh application was made for regularization after death.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to settle all benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 for the legal representative within 4 months; denied regularization and compassionate appointment

Smt. Sudha W/O Late Gajanana Bhat Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 103633 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 103633 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUDHA W/O LATE GAJANANA BHAT, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: BETTAGERI, POST: HOLEGADDE, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
RAKESH Location:
S High Court
of Karnataka,
HARIHAR Dharwad
Date:
2023.06.01
11:25:16
+0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU.

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, UTTARA KANNADA, AT: KARWAR.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH SUB-DIVISION, KUMTA, AT: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDWORSEMENT NO.

¶20

¶21

WP No. 103633 of 2018

¶22

KRA.SUMZPA/LOKO/DIANUKAMPA/2017-18 DATED 17/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE –“L” & ETC.

¶23

DATED

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner who is the widow of late Gajanana Bhat who was working as a daily wager with the 2^nd respondent, has approached this Court in the instant writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

“A) Writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement No.Kra.sum.zpam/loko/dianukampa/2017-18 dated 17.07.2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent produced at Annexure-L.

¶28

B) Writ of mandamus to consider the representation dated 18.05.2017 given by the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent is herein produced at Annexure-K, and further direct to issue appointment order to the petitioner as prayed on the compassionate grounds due to death of her husband while he was on Government job.

¶29

C) Pass such order or orders which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶31

also perused the material available on record.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 103633 of 2018

¶34

The petitioner’s husband late Gajanana Bhat

¶35

was appointed as a peon/guard on daily wage basis in the year 1987 by the 2^nd respondent. In the year 1989, Gajanana Bhat had made a representation for regularization of his appointment. Subsequently Gajanana Bhat along with similarly situated other employees had approached this Court in WP Nos.37030 to 37063 of 1997 with a prayer to direct the 2^nd respondent to regularize their services in the post held by them. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 30.03.1998 with a direction to each of the petitioners to give separate representation with separate documents to the competent authority seeking for appropriate reliefs and a time frame was fixed for consideration of the said representations in accordance with law and liberty was also reserved to the petitioners therein to seek appropriate reliefs if any adverse orders were passed against them.

¶36

It appears that the petitioners No.13 and 15 in the said writ petition had made representations pursuant

¶37

¶38

WP No. 103633 of 2018

¶39

to the orders passed in WP Nos.37030 to 37063 of 1997 and considering the same, their appointment was

¶40

regularized in the post held by them.

¶41

After coming into force of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (‘the Act of 2012’, for short), the 2^nd respondent had prepared a list of employees who were serving as daily wage employees and late Gajanana Bhat’s name is found at Sl.No.31 in the said list. On 03.05.2016, late Gajanana Bhat had submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent with a prayer to extend pensionary and service benefits to him in par with the employees whose services were regularized. Considering the said representation, the 3^rd respondent had forwarded the same to the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-F. In turn, the Executive Engineer of the 2^nd respondent-Zilla Panchayat had issued a communication to the 2^nd respondent for taking appropriate action on the representation made by Gajanana Bhat and extend the benefits of the Act of 2012 in his favour. When the matter stood thus, Gajanana Bhat expired on 24.03.2017.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 103633 of 2018

¶44

Thereafter the petitioner had submitted representation dated 18.05.2017 with a prayer to regularize the services of her deceased husband and also to give an appointment to her daughter on compassionate ground. The said representation was considered and rejected by the 2^nd respondent vide endorsement at Annexure-K dated 17.07.2017. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the services of similarly situated employees were considered and they were regularized to the post which they held. However the prayer of Gajanana Bhat for regularization was not considered. He further submits that since Gajanana Bhat has died pending consideration of his representation seeking regularization, the competent authority is required to pass an appropriate order on the said representation, thereafter extend the service benefits to his legal representative and also consider the case of his daughter for compassionate appointment.

¶46

¶47

WP No. 103633 of 2018

¶48

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

¶49

respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that, Gajanana Bhat had not submitted any representation seeking regularization subsequent to the orders passed by this Court in WP Nos.37030 to 37063 of 1997. He submits that, for the first time representation was submitted by Gajanana Bhat in the year 2016 seeking to extend pensionary and other service benefits to him in par with the services of employees who were regularized. The same is being considered in accordance with law and if the benefits under the Act of 2012 are not yet extended, the same will be extended to the petitioner, if some reasonable time is granted. He submits that, since the services of Gajanana Bhat was not regularized, the application of his legal representative for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be considered. He accordingly submits that there is no merit in this writ petition.

¶50

Learned AGA has also supported the arguments

¶51

addressed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶52

¶53

WP No. 103633 of 2018

¶54

I have carefully considered the rival contentions

¶55

of both sides and also perused the material available on record.

¶56

It is not in dispute that, the petitioner’s husband late Gajanana Bhat was working as a daily wage employee with the 2^nd respondent. Annexure-D is the list of daily wage employees prepared by the 2^nd respondent, subsequent to the Act of 2012 coming into force. In the said list, name of Gajanan Bhat is found in Sl.No.31. Gajanan Bhat has filed representation vide Annexure-E dated 03.05.2016 with a prayer to extend pensionary and service benefits in par with the regularized employees. No representation was made by him for regularization of his services subsequent to the orders passed by this Court in WP Nos.37030 to 37063 of 1997 Gajanana Bhat had not filed any application as directed by this Court in its order dated 30.03.1998. Pending consideration of Annexure-E, Gajanana Bhat has expired on 24.03.2017. The material on record would go show that the representation submitted by late Gajanana Bhat is under consideration,

¶57

¶58

WP No. 103633 of 2018

¶59

and vide communication dated 31.05.2016 a

¶60

recommendation is made to consider the case of Gajanana Bhat under the provisions of the Act of 2012, and while rejecting the case of the petitioner’s daughter for compassionate appointment, it is stated that the benefits under the Act of 2012 shall be extended to the petitioner. Since Gajanana Bhat had not made any application for regularization of his service during his lifetime, the prayer made by his legal representative who is the wife of late Gajanana Bhat for regularization of his service after his death, cannot be considered. Since the services of Gajanana Bhat was not regularized during his lifetime, the competent authority is justified in refusing to entertain the application filed by the petitioner’s daughter seeking compassionate appointment. However, respondents are required to consider the representation at Annexure-E under the provisions of the Act of 2012 and settle all the benefits under the said Act in favour of the petitioner, if the same is not already settled. Accordingly the following:

¶61

9 - WP No. 103633 of 2018

¶62

ORDER

¶63

Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take further action pursuant to the recommendations at Annexures-F and G and also the direction given under communication at Annexure-L dated 17.07.2017 for settling all the benefits under the Act of 2012 in favour of the legal representative of late Gajanana Bhat and the said exercise shall be completed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the benefits shall be settled in favour of the legal representatives of late Gajanana Bhat as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if the benefits under the Act of 2012 have not been already settled.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Kgk/Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt. Sudha W/O Late Gajanana Bhat v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sudha W/O Late Gajanana Bhat 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Vittal F Bharamannavar

Ishwarappa Mahalingappa Kolhar Vs Director of Technical Education

M/S Palled Regency Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Basavaraj S/O. Bhojappa Kadagad Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Sri Mallasarjappa S/O Yellappa Omkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rudrappa S/O Yadavappa Yadavannavar Vs the State of Karnataka