Disposed

Smt Mahadevamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023WP/7242/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by the widow of a deceased daily wage driver regularized for co-workers but excluded due to death. Court directed the Authority to grant ex-gratia payment under the Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act for years of rendered service.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Mysore Urban Development Authority to grant ex-gratia payment under Section 4(2) of the Act and Rule 4(3) of the Rules for every year of service rendered by the petitioner's husband.

Smt Mahadevamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:45365 WP No. 7242 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 7242 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A NO.5704, IST CROSS SHANKARAPURA, NANJANGUD TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT-571301 PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING ANY

¶9

SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

Digitally signed by VIKASA SOUDHA KIRAN BANGALORE-560001. KUMAR R Location: HIGH 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570009.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A AND E) PARK HOUSE ROAD, P B NO.5329 BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:45365 WP No. 7242 of 2023

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DTD 06.09.2021 (ANNEXURE-U) AND IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 08.09.2021 (ANNEXURE-V) AND QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 06.09.2021 BEARING NO. NAAE 53 MAIAPRA 2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-U) AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.09.2021 BEARING NO. MAINAPRAA/SIBBANDI/P.R163/2018-19 ISSUED BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE-V) IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF BENEFIT OF REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE OF THE DECEASED HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER, LATE KARIYAPPA IS CONCERNED (SL.NO.14) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TREAT THE SERVICES OF THE DECEASED HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER AS REGULARIZED FROM THE DATE HE HAS COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.221/2022 (ANNEXURE-W), ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The husband of the petitioner was appointed on daily

¶24

wages on 13.12.1988 as a driver.

¶25

It is not in dispute that he passed away while in service on 13.08.2010. It is also not in dispute that during his life-time, a proposal was, in fact, sent to the Government recommending the regularisation of 28 employees. It is stated that the name of the petitioner was also included in the list of this 28 employees.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45365 WP No. 7242 of 2023

¶27

It appears that thereafter, the co-employees of the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. Nos.32972-987 of 2015 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize their services and this Court, by an order dated 22.08.2016, directed the State to consider the representation submitted in that regard and pass appropriate orders.

¶28

It is also not in dispute that thereafter, the Mysore Urban Development Authority (‘MUDA’, for short) did submit a proposal for regularizing the services of 28 employees as per Annexure ‘L’ and in this list, the name of the petitioner’s husband was found at Sl.No.17.

¶29

Thereafter, the MUDA, once again sought approval for regularizing the services of 25 employees as per Annexure ‘N’ and even in this list of employees, the name of the petitioner was found at Sl.No.14, though he had passed away while he was in service.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45365 WP No. 7242 of 2023

¶31

The co-employees of the petitioner’s husband, thereafter approached this Court in W.P. No.10608 of 2020, seeking a direction to the respondents to accord approval to the proposal sent for recommendation and this Court, by an order dated 01.04.2021, directed the State to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization.

¶32

Pursuant to the said order, the State Government passed an order on 06.09.2021 holding that the coemployees of the petitioner’s husband were not entitled for absorption, but the benefit of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the Act’) should be extended to them.

¶33

Consequently, an order dated 08.09.2021 was passed by the MUDA extending the benefit of the Act in favour of 25 employees. In this order also, the name of the petitioner’s husband was found at Sl.No.14.

¶34

Thus, it cannot be in dispute that the MUDA accepted the fact that the petitioner had rendered services in their

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45365 WP No. 7242 of 2023

¶36

organization till his death in 2010 and he was entitled for the benefit under the Act.

¶37

Thereafter, the co-employees of the petitioner’s husband filed one more Writ Petition No.221 of 2022, in which a positive direction was issued to the MUDA to regularize the services of the petitioners therein and the MUDA, pursuant to the said order, has ultimately passed an order regularizing the services of 18 petitioners. However, the services of the petitioner’s husband was not regularized since, obviously, he was not alive as on that particular date.

¶38

In my view, having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s husband had served the organization from 1988 and the MUDA itself decided to extend the benefit under the Act to the petitioner’s husband, it would be appropriate to direct the MUDA to extend the benefit of granting ex-gratia payment as provided under Section 4(2) the Act and Rule 4(3) of the Karnataka Daily Wage

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45365 WP No. 7242 of 2023

¶40

Employees Welfare Rules, 2013 for every year of service rendered by the petitioner’s husband.

¶41

It has to be stated here that the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek regularization of her husband’s service 13 years after he had passed away and therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the MUDA to grant the benefits that are available under the Act to the petitioner’s husband.

¶42

This benefit shall be granted and made over to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶44

RK CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

Smt Mahadevamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mahadevamma 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

Shri T Thimmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T. Shankar Vs Karnataka State Teachers Benefits Fund

Dr. P. Manjunatha Vs Chancellor

Smt. Putta Siddamma, Vs the State of Karnataka

R S Rajesh Vs the Oriental Bank of Commerce

Smt Hemalatha Vs the Manager