Partly allowed

Smt Manjula W/O Basavaraj Kattimani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/107198/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dependents of a daily-wage pump operator who died before regularization sought notional regularization for terminal benefits. The court found the authorities' communication wrongly treated the claim as compassionate appointment, quashed it, and directed reconsideration or lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication and endorsement quashed; respondents directed to reconsider notional regularization for terminal benefits or alternatively pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- within thre

Smt Manjula W/O Basavaraj Kattimani Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13140 WP No. 107198 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.107198 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MANJULA W/O. BASAVARAJ KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶10

NINGAPPA

¶11

S/O. BASAVARAJ KATTIMANI,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

¶13

ARUNA

¶14

D/O. BASAVARAJ KATTIMANI,

¶15

AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶16

ALL ARE residents of #464, VADDARA CHAVANI, KHASBAG BELAGAVI – 590 003.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

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

¶19

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADV.)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEETHI, BANGALORE – 01.

¶22

THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9^TH FLOOR, VISHWESHARAIAH TOWER, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13140 WP No. 107198 of 2023

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶26

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DIST URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶27

THE CHIEF OFFICER, ALNAVAR TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ALNAVAR, DIST: DHARWAD – 581 103.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI YUTHS M.B.PUJAR, G.B.HALI AND SRI C.B.SHAKUNAVALLI, ADVTS. FOR R5)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 30-3-2022 BEARING NO. 28949. DMA 29: DWE: 2019-20 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 25-4-2022 BEARING NO. �� ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS AND REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE BASAVARAJ KATTIMANI, THE DECEASED HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND FATHER OF PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ON PAR WITH THE PETITIONERS IN WP NO. 108063-108065/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND EXTEND ALL THE SERVICE BENEFITS OF DECEASED BASAVARAJ KATTIMANI TO THE PETITIONERS BY REGULARIZING HIS SERVICES.

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13140 WP No. 107198 of 2023

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Challenging communication dated 30.03.2022 issued by respondent no.2 at Annexure-M, consequential endorsement dated 25.04.2022 issued by respondent no.3 at Annexure-N, seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents no.1 to 3 to consider claim of petitioners for regularization of services of Basavaraj Kattimani, husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioners no.2 and 3 and to extend consequential service benefits, this writ petition is filed.

¶35

Sri Santosh B.Mane, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is wife of Basavaraj Kattimani, and petitioners no.2 and 3 his children. Said Basavaraj Kattimani, was appointed as Pump Operator by 5^th respondent TMC in year 1989 on daily wages. After completion of more than 10 years of service, when he was entitled for regularization in service, Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad in Notification dated 11.12.2006 had notified his name along with others calling for objections against proposal for regularization of their services. It was

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13140 WP No. 107198 of 2023

¶37

submitted, before completion of said process, he died on 18.09.2007. Subsequently, in pursuance of directions issued by this Court, services of other persons whose names were notified along with that of deceased, came to be regularized as per order at Annexure-F. Since petitioners would be entitled to terminal benefits, in case, service of Basavaraj Kattimani were to be regularized, they filed W.P.No.102900/2018 before this Court. Same was disposed of on 09.08.2021 permitting petitioners to submit representation and directing respondents to consider same within three months.

¶38

Upon submission of representation as per

¶39

Annexure-L, impugned communication at Annexure-M and impugned endorsement at Annexure-N came to be passed. It was submitted, though representation and directions issued was to consider case of regularization notionally for purposes of availing terminal benefits to dependents, endorsement issued would reveal that consideration was from point of view of compassionate appointment only. Same would be ex

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13140 WP No. 107198 of 2023

¶41

facie suffer from non-application of mind and on said ground sought for allowing writ petition.

¶42

Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader on other hand sought to oppose writ petition.

¶43

It was submitted admittedly, Basavaraj Kattimani, had died prior to formal order of regularization and at stage of consideration. In view of above, dependents could not pursue a claim for regularization. Therefore, endorsement issued was fully justifiable.

¶44

In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in recommendation/notification at Annexure-C and impugned endorsements or submission in writ petition filed by petitioners earlier, respondents had not disputed service rendered by Basavaraj Kattimani. Therefore, submitted that this was a fit case for issuance of direction for reconsideration.

¶45

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13140 WP No. 107198 of 2023

¶47

From above, it is seen there is no dispute about

¶48

Basavaraj Kattimani who is husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioners no.2 and 3 having rendered service on daily wages from 01.06.1995 i.e., for a period of 12 years prior to his death. Petitioners had earlier approached this Court claiming for regularization of his services for purposes of availing terminal benefits to family. Impugned communication and endorsement at Annexures-M and N respectively would indicate consideration only from point of view of appointment on compassionate ground, which would be ex facie erroneous, if not suffering from non-application of mind. Hence, impugned communication at Annexure-M and endorsement at Annexure-N are quashed.

¶49

Taking note of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi Flight Services reported in (2010) 1 SCC 142, even in case, it would not be appropriate to issue a direction for regularization, it would be appropriate to order payment of lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, writ petition is allowed in part with a direction to respondents to re-consider

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13140 WP No. 107198 of 2023

¶51

petitioners’ request for regularization of services of

¶52

Basavaraj Kattimani only for purposes of availing terminal benefits to petitioners-dependents or in alternative to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to them.

¶53

Time for reconsideration shall be three months under

¶54

intimation to petitioners.

¶55

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶56

EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt Manjula W/O Basavaraj Kattimani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manjula W/O Basavaraj Kattimani 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

Krishna S/O Timmanayak Dalawal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Siddarameshwar Education Trust, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Taufeeq Abdulgafar Dharwad Vs Smt.Tabassum W/O Taufeeq Dharwad

T Ravikumar S/O Late Eranna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Parashuram S/O Kudleppa Gudadari Vs the Director of Municipal Administration for State of Karnataka

The Range Forest Officer Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner