Allowed

M. Nagendra Naik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2024WP/20832/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employee of the Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation sought mandamus to regularize his service after over ten years, alleging non-compliance with earlier High Court directions. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Corporation to consider his representation for regularization within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider petitioner's representation for regularization per order dated 18.07.2012 in W.P.Nos.10745-10756/2012, with orders within three months.

M. Nagendra Naik Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:161 WP No. 20832 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 20832 OF 2019 (S-REG)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M. NAGENDRA NAIK, S/O M MANA NAIK, AGED 35 YEARS, WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR KARNATAKA STAE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, HEGELEGERE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, R/O HEGELEGERE , HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VITC BUILDINGS, KASTURABA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. C.N. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. HARISH A.S, HCGP FOR R1)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:161 WP No. 20832 of 2019

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE IN KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking mandamus against the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation seeking regularization of service with respondent No.2.

¶22

The petitioner is working with respondent No.2

¶23

at Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, for more than 10 years. The petitioner claimed that his service is continuous and unblemished. The present petition is filed alleging that there is total inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in not complying with the direction issued by this Court in W.P.Nos. 10745-10756/2012, wherein respondent No.2 was directed to consider the case of the petitioner and similarly placed employees for regularisation.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:161 WP No. 20832 of 2019

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶27

learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the records.

¶28

The co-ordinate bench of this Court while examining the case of the present petitioner and other similarly placed employees of respondent No.2, taking note of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi¹ , held that the present petitioner and similarly placed employees have been appointed against clear vacancies and they have completed 10 years of service in the said post and as such they are entitled for regularization into service. It is in this background, a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioners therein for regularisation as and when it becomes imperative for the corporation regarding giving preference and priority to the petitioners.

¶29

1 2006 (4) SCC 1

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:161 WP No. 20832 of 2019

¶32

The petitioner in the captioned petition has placed reliance on the latest judgment rendered by the coordinate bench in W.P.Nos.27019-27020/2017 and connected cases, which was filed at the instance of similarly placed employees who were parties to the earlier petitions. Paragraph Nos.6 to 8 would be relevant and the same is culled out as under:

¶33

"6. Having heard the learned Counsels,this court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioners will have to be considered by the second respondent-Corporation, in the light of the directions already issued by this Court in writ petitions mentioned above. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the draft of the C & R Rules which were communicated to the State may receive approval in the near future. But the fact remains that irrespective of whether the C & R Rules may or may not be approved by the State Government, the second respondent Corporation is duty bound to comply with the directions issued by this Court.

¶34

7. It is asserted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that sufficient vacancies are there in the respondent-Corporation and the petitioners could be regularized in terms of the directions earlier issued by this Court.

¶35

8. In the light of the above, these petitions are Disposed of with a direction to the second respondent-

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:161 WP No. 20832 of 2019

¶37

Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioners for regularization, in terms of the order dated 18.07.2012 issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.1074510756/2012 as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the representation given by the petitioners are not available with the respondent-Corporation, the memorandum of these writ petitions ma be treated as a representation by the petitioners."

¶38

In the light of directions issued in the batch of petitions as per Annexure-A and also the observations made by the co-ordinate bench in the latest judgment vide Annexure-H to the petition, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to seek direction against respondent No.2 as there is inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in not complying with the direction issued by this Court. In the light of observations made supra, I proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No.2/corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner for

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:161 WP No. 20832 of 2019

¶43

regularisation in terms of the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.10745-10756/2012;

¶44

ii. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders bearing in mind the direction issued by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶45

iii. It is made clear that if the representation submitted by the petitioner is not available with respondent No.2/corporation, respondent No.2 shall treat this memorandum of petition as a representation and pass appropriate orders in terms of directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.10745-10756/2012.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

HDK

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK

M. Nagendra Naik v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Nagendra Naik v. 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

Sri Dr P Manjunath Vs Vice Chancellor

Sri Jayarajaiah Vs the Joint Registrar of

Sri K Shivananje Gowda Vs Vokkalingara Sangha (Regd)

Sri. Narayana Gowda Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Sri. K. M. Gopinathan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt M C Geetha Vs the State of Karnataka