Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Ganesh Rao

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/4002/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal challenging an ST order that allowed regularization of a Group D employee, the Court dismissed the State's petition. The Court held that the State's action in recalling regularization after a decade and failing to produce evidence of interim orders at the time was belated and could not be entertained.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition filed by the State to quash the ST order allowing regularization is dismissed.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Ganesh Rao — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB WP No. 4002 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 4002 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HORTICULTURE AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER FOR SERICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE BENGALURU

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI GANESH RAO S/O LATE VENKOBA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D GROUP EMPLOYEE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.1, DIVISION (VIBHAGA) SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT RESHME BHAVANA, OKALIPURAM R/O. NO. 6-9(1), DEPARTMENT QUARTERS CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB WP No. 4002 of 2023

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE

¶21

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.4510/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the State challenging an order dated 18.05.2021 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter, referred to as 'Tribunal' for

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB WP No. 4002 of 2023

¶28

short) by which an application filed by the private respondent herein has been allowed.

¶29

The private respondent had approached the Tribunal stating that he had been appointed as a Group 'D' employee on the daily wages in 1984. On completion of ten years of service, his services were regularized by order dated 16.11.2007 with retrospective effect from 05.06.1997. His pay was also fixed. While so, on 18.05.2015, a show cause notice was issued stating that the order of regularization is to be revoked since the applicant had continued in service on the basis of interim orders granted by this Court. Though the applicant had submitted a reply denying the contention, the petitioner had gone on to pass orders recalling the order of regularization, which was under challenge before the Tribunal.

¶30

The Tribunal considered the contentions and found that the order of regularization dated 16.11.2007 specifically stated that the petitioner had completed ten years of service as Assistant Cook on daily wages. It was further found that though the applicant had denied that his appointment had been continued on the basis of interim orders of the High Court, no

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB WP No. 4002 of 2023

¶32

details regarding such Interim Orders had been produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal. It was found that the petitioner could have produced copies of the Interim directions to show that the order of recalling after ten years was justified. However, this was not done.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice had not only mentioned that the applicant had continued on the basis of the Interim order but had also given the number of the writ petition in which such orders had been passed. However, we notice that even in this writ petition, the details of such orders of copies thereof are not produced. We further notice that the Tribunal had taken note of the contentions that the regularization of the services was in the year 2007 with retrospective effect from 1997. The Show Cause notice was issued for the first time in the year 2015. We therefore, notice that there has been a long delay on the part of the State to invoke its power of recall, even if what is stated in the Show cause notice were found to be correct. The petitioner, who had been granted the benefits of regularization with effect from 16.11.2007 and had continued in regular service thereafter was

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB WP No. 4002 of 2023

¶36

called upon only on 18.05.2015 to show cause why his regularization should not be recalled. We are of the opinion that the action of the petitioner was completely belated in view of the fact that the respondent was a person who had initially been appointed as a daily wager in the year 1984 and who had been granted the benefit of regularization by order dated 16.11.2007 with effect from 1997.

¶37

In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the State is not entitled to raise the plea that the private respondent did not meet one of the requirements for regularization at this belated stage.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if a further chance is given, a copy of the interim order by which the private respondent was permitted to continue in service can be procured and produced before this Court. However, in the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the plea made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the copies of the orders which are referred to in the show cause should be permitted to be produced before the Court is highly belated and cannot be considered.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:30365-DB WP No. 4002 of 2023

¶41

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed .

¶42

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶43

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶44

RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Ganesh Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Ganesh Rao

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. M. Seenappa

Sri K.C. Shivanna, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Latha H.R., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjegowda M J Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri M J Thimmegowda