Disposed

Smt. Putta Siddamma, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023WP/8104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court observed that while regularization of service cannot be granted to the deceased husband, the statutory benefit of ex-gratia payment reserved for deceased employees under the applicable Act and Rules should be extended to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Mysore Urban Development Authority to grant ex-gratia payment for the services rendered by the petitioner's husband and to pay the same to the petitioner within two months.

Smt. Putta Siddamma, Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45368 WP No. 8104 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8104 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PUTTA SIDDAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, 8TH CROSS, JANATA BADAVANE, J P NAGAR, MYSORE-570008. (PETITIONER IS NOR CLAIMING ANY SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

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

¶13

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J L B ROAD, MYSORE-570009.

¶14

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

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:45368 WP No. 8104 of 2023

¶20

RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 06/09/2021 (ANNEXURE-T) IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08/09/2021 (ANNEXURE-U) AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 23/03/2023 (ANNEXURE-AA), ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The husband of the petitioner was appointed on daily

¶24

wages on 25.05.1986 as a Gangman.

¶25

It is not in dispute that he passed away while in service on 27.02.2009. 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 containing these 28 employees.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45368 WP No. 8104 of 2023

¶28

representation submitted in that regard and pass appropriate orders.

¶29

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 ‘K’ and in this list, the name of the petitioner’s husband was found at Sl.No.22.

¶30

Thereafter, the MUDA once again sought approval of the regularizing the services of 25 employees as per Annexure ‘M’ and even in this list of employees, the name of the petitioner was found at Sl.No.19, though he had passed away while he was in service.

¶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 the 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

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:45368 WP No. 8104 of 2023

¶34

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.

¶35

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.19.

¶36

Thus, it cannot be in dispute that the MUDA accepted

¶37

the fact that the petitioner had rendered services in their organization till his death in 2009 and he was entitled for the benefit under the Act.

¶38

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

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45368 WP No. 8104 of 2023

¶40

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.

¶41

In my view, having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s husband had served the organization from 1986 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) of the Act and Rule 4(3) of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Rules, 2013 for every year of service rendered by the petitioner’s husband.

¶42

It has to be stated here that the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek regularization of her husband’s service 14 years after he had passed away and therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the MUDA to grant the benefits

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:45368 WP No. 8104 of 2023

¶44

¶45

that are available under the Act, to the petitioner’s husband.

¶46

This benefit shall be granted and made over to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of

¶47

receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

RK CT: SN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

Smt. Putta Siddamma, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Putta Siddamma, 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 Mahadevamma Vs the State of Karnataka

R S Rajesh Vs the Oriental Bank of Commerce

Smt Hemalatha Vs the Manager