Dismissed

Sri. Shanthi Prakash v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024WP/13096/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired daily wager of the Directorate of Fisheries sought regularization claiming compliance with the Umadevi judgment, challenging an endorsement refusing his request. The court noted he had already received financial benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees' Welfare Act, 2012, found no exception to the endorsement, and rejected the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Shanthi Prakash Vs the Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19358 WP No. 13096 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13096 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SHANTHI PRAKASH S/O LATE CHIKKANNA FIRST DIVISION CLERK (RETIRED) AGED ABOUT 63 YEAR, RESIDING AT NADEMAVINAMARA, KUNIGAL TALUK, YADIYURU HOBLI, TUMKURU DIST - 572 130.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRI KUMAR S V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ANIMAL HUSBANDRY FISHERIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, 4TH FLOOR, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE, AND REFORMS, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES PODIYAM BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:19358 WP No. 13096 of 2024

¶18

V V TOWER, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES NATIONAL FISH SEED FARM, B R PROJECT, BHADRAVATI (T) SHIMOGA 577 115.

¶20

ASST. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES VANI VILASA SAGARA, HIRIYUR (T) CHITRADURGA - 577 599.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ISSUED ENDORSEMENT BEARING VIDE NO. ENDORSEMENT /NINI/ADMINISTRATION (02)/01/2023 DATED 25/03/2024 IS HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY R3; DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER IS IN COMPLIANCE OF UMADEVI'S JUDGMENT DATED 10/06/2006 SINCE THE PETITIONER ADMITTEDLY IN THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING VIDE NO. ENDORSEMENT / NINI/ADMINISTRATION (2)/01/2023 DATED 25/03/2024 IS HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-E THAT HE IS WORKING SINCE 14/11/1988 IN SANCTIONED / SUPERNUMERARY POST.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:19358 WP No. 13096 of 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner, who is now aged 63 years, was in employment with the Directorate of Fisheries [ the third respondent ] as a Daily Wager. The State Government, acting under the provisions of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees' Welfare Act 2012, has issued the Notification dated 28.06.2014 signifying that the petitioner shall continue as a Daily Wager until he completes the age of 60 years, and he shall be entitled for certain consequential benefits. The petitioner, upon completing 60 years, is paid a sum of Rs.5,62,154/- in accordance with the afore Act¹ .

¶29

The petitioner thereafter viz ., on 21.12.2023 has filed a representation, in terms of the liberty reserved by this Court while disposing of his subsequent writ petition in W.P.No.24495/2023 [S-

¶30

1 Obviously, there is an error in mentioning the Act in the Communication dated 25.03.2024 as Daily Wages Act, 1972.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:19358 WP No. 13096 of 2024

¶33

RES], seeking regularization and consequential benefits. The petitioner's case for regularization has been considered under the relevant Rules and thereafter notification is issued to stipulate that the petitioner will continue as a Daily Wager until the completion of 60 years being entitled to certain financial benefits, and if the petitioner has received such benefits, this Court must observe that no exception can be taken with the impugned Communication dated 25.03.2024 [ Annexure-E ] whereby, the petitioner is informed that his request for regularization, cannot be considered for the reasons as stated above.

¶34

Therefore, the petition is rejected.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sri. Shanthi Prakash v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Shanthi Prakash v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Subhas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

The Peddur Grama Panchayat Vs the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department

Dr. Lavanya L M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Divakar Vs the Chairman

H.S. Virupaksha Vs the State of Karnataka