Dismissed

Shri Nagesh S/O Hanamath Pujeri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/100174/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by employees seeking regularization of services. The Court observed that since the petitioners did not challenge the regularization of other employees whom they accused of illegal tenure alteration, they could not claim similar benefits for themselves. The petition was disposed of per incuriam with liberty to challenge specific endorsements later.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to petitioners to challenge the endorsement dated 12.09.2022 and question the order of regularization of other respondents.

Shri Nagesh S/O Hanamath Pujeri Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12643 WP No. 100174 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.100174 OF 2023 (S-REG)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI NAGESH,

¶10

S/O. HANAMATH PUJERI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: WALL MAN CMC GOKAK, R/O:G.R.I.C, NEAR HILLA GARDAN GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 367.

¶11

SHRI BALESH, S/O. YAMANAPPA MASTAMARDI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: WALL MAN CMC GOKAK, R/O: NAIK GALLI GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 307.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI SANTOSH S.HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE UNDER SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR),

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12643 WP No. 100174 of 2023

¶20

(SERVICE RULE -1) VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01.

¶22

THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9-10^TH FLOOR, VISHWASHWARYYA, TOWN BENGALURU – 01.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

THE COMMISSIONER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 307.

¶25

SHRI RAMAKRISHNA C.MANNIKERI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 307.

¶26

SHRI ASHOK H. MUTTEPPAGOL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 307.

¶27

SHRI DILEP NAGAPPA MESTRI, AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 307.

¶28

SHRI S. F. GOKAK, AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GOKAK,

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12643 WP No. 100174 of 2023

¶30

TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 307.

¶31

SHRI MAHADEV TALIKOTI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TOWN MUNICIPAL COUCIL GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 307.

¶32

SHRI SADASHIV C. NAIK, AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 307.

¶33

SHRI IRANNA R. HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 307.

¶34

SHRI VASANTH S. GASTI, AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI–591 307.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI M.J.PEERJADE, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R14)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 DATED 04/08/2022 VIDE ANNEXUREK. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.6 TO RECONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-H DATED 15/02/2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12643 WP No. 100174 of 2023

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Challenging endorsement dated 04.08.2022 issued by respondent no.6 at Annexure-K and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondent no.6 to reconsider petitioners’ representation at Annexure-H dated 15.02.2021, this writ petition is filed.

¶42

Sri Santosh S.Hattkatagi, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are working as ‘D’ group employees under respondent no.6 since 20 years. It was submitted that respondent no.6 passed a resolution on 13.01.2011 certifying completion of 10 years of uninterrupted service by petitioners along with others. In view of same, petitioners were entitled for being considered for regularization. Therefore, they submitted representation on 27.05.2020 as per Annexure-E.

¶43

It was submitted, respondent no.6 had regularized services of various persons under Official Memorandum at Annexure-D, deprived petitioners of similar

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12643 WP No. 100174 of 2023

¶45

benefit. Hence, they had approached this Court in W.P.no.100103/2021. Said writ petition was disposed of on 27.01.2021 by directing respondent no.6 to consider their representation.

¶46

It was submitted, thereafter petitioners submitted representation at Annexure-H appending copy of order, resolution and other documents. Instead of considering same, respondent no.4 had directed respondent no.5 to issue appropriate endorsement with observation that petitioners had not completed 10 years of service before 10.04.2006. It was submitted, respondent no.6 had altered date of initial entry into service and considered for regularization in case of respondents no.7 to 14 herein as per Annexure-J. But refused genuine demand by petitioners. On said ground petitioners sought for allowing writ petition.

¶47

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents no.1 to 5, Sri Srinand A.Pachhapure, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri M.J.Peerjade, learned counsel for respondents no.7 to 14 sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, impugned

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12643 WP No. 100174 of 2023

¶49

Annexure-K challenged by petitioners was infact an internal communication by respondent no.4 to respondent no.5 to examine petitioners’ representation and to issue appropriate endorsement. It was submitted, in pursuance of said communication, respondent no.5-Deputy Commissioner had considered petitioners’ representation and issued endorsement dated 12.09.2022 which was produced along with memo by respondent no.6. In view of above, petitioners’ representation had been considered rendering grievance of petitioners academic.

¶50

Learned counsel for respondents no.7 to 14 submitted that petitioners had not questioned order of regularization of respondents. Therefore, they were not necessary parties.

¶51

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶52

record.

¶53

From above, it is seen petitioners have filed this

¶54

petition claiming to be aggrieved by communication at Annexure-K. Perusal of Annexure-K would indicate that

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12643 WP No. 100174 of 2023

¶56

respondent no.4 has directed respondent no.5 to examine petitioners’ claim for regularization in light of directions issued by this Court in W.P.no.100103/2021 at Annexure-G. Though an observation is made that petitioners had not completed 10 years of service prior to 10.04.2006, when same is examined by reference to resolution by respondent no.6 at Annexure-A, it cannot be stated to be erroneous.

¶57

In any case, respondent no.5 having considered petitioners’ representation in depth has issued endorsement dated 12.09.2022. If petitioners are aggrieved thereby, they ought to have questioned same. It would also be relevant to observe that petitioners have contended that regularization of services of respondents no.7 to 14 was by altering date of their initial entry into service. However, petitioners have not questioned their regularization. Therefore, when petitioners are alleging regularization of respondents no.7 to 14 is by illegal means, they cannot seek for extension of similar benefit unto themselves. Same would be seeking indulgence of Court for perpetration of an illegality.

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12643 WP No. 100174 of 2023

¶59

In view of above, with liberty to petitioners to challenge endorsement dated 12.09.2022 issued by respondent no.5 and to question order of regularization of respondents no.7 to 14, if they are so advised, writ petition

¶60

stands disposed of.

¶61

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶62

CLK CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Shri Nagesh S/O Hanamath Pujeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nagesh S/O Hanamath Pujeri 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Husenbi W/O Dastageersab Mulla Vs Smt Shainazbegum W/O Mardansab Doctor

Mr Anwar Ibrahim Khan Vs Sri Shireen Iqbal Sayed W/O Iqbal Sayed

Sri Deepak S/O Veerabhadrappa Jambotkar Vs Smt Vidyashri W/O Deepak Jambotkar

Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., Vs Krishna C. Naik

Ishwargouda S/O Martandagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravindar S/O Sharanappa Nagarale Vs the State of Karnataka