Allowed

H S Madhumathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/56491/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A stenographer deputed from the closed Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Company challenged an order directing her absorption into Mysore Minerals instead of the office where she had served since 1999. Following earlier coordinate-bench orders granting similar absorption, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and she was directed to be absorbed in the Department of Revenue with con

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.12.2015 quashed; petitioner directed to be absorbed in Department of Revenue at respondent No.7 with consequential benefits within three months.

H S Madhumathi Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39853 WP No. 56491 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 56491 OF 2015 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H.S. MADHUMATHI W/O LATE SRI. M.B. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS A STENOGRAPHER ON DEPUTATION SINCE 05-03-1999 AT RESPONDENT NO.7 UNDER RESPONDENT NO.6 BEING HER DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND UNDER RESPONDENT NO.5 BEING THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY EVEN PRIOR TO FORECLOSURE OF HER PARENTAL DEPARTMENTMYSORE ACETATE AND CHEMICALS COMPANY LIMITED, MANDYA

¶8

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

RESIDING (PERMANENT) AT NO.D-2/7, ACETATE TOWN, MANDYA-571404

¶10

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.292, "DWARAKAMAAYI NILAYA", 5^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU-560060

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD ANWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39853 WP No. 56491 of 2015

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED NO.39, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS,

¶20

BENGALURU -560 001.

¶21

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, KANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶22

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE (GANDHINAGAR) 2^ND FLOOR, MARUTHI PLAZA, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 8;

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39853 WP No. 56491 of 2015

¶27

SRI. A.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.12.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE NO.CI 41 CEL 2015, BENGALURU [ªÁPÉÊ 41 ¹EJ¯ï 2015 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀB 09.12.2015] VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No. ªÁPÉÊ 41

¶33

¹EJ¯ï 2015 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated 09.12.2015 passed by the

¶34

respondent No.2. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 to 8 to absorb her in the present Department where she has been working for the last 16 years.

¶35

The petitioner contends that she joined Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Company Limited, (henceforth referred to as 'the Company'), Mandya, as a Stenographer on 01.04.1992. The Company was closed down by virtue of an order of the State Government bearing No.DDPER 75 ARU 2002, Bangalore, dated 08.05.2003. In order to protect the

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39853 WP No. 56491 of 2015

¶37

interest of the employees working in the Company, the State Government took various measures one of which was by drafting employees working in the Company to various autonomous bodies, Corporations, Boards under its control. The petitioner was sent on deputation to work as a Stenographer in the respondent No.7. It is contended that since 05.03.1999, she is working as a Stenographer at the respondent No.7. Likewise, various co-employees of the petitioner were sent to various Departments. She, therefore, contends that her services has to be absorbed in the respondent No.7 where she is working since 05.03.1999. The petitioner and some of her co-employees approached this Court in W.P. No.28000/2003 and connected cases seeking to quash the Government Order dated 24.02.2003 in so far as it related to denying the benefit of absorption to them. In the said writ petitions, this Court quashed the Government order dated 24.02.2003 in so far as it related to denial of benefit of absorption to the petitioners who were all working in different Government Departments and Municipal Councils and directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for absorption in the light of the observations made in

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39853 WP No. 56491 of 2015

¶39

the said order dated 22.03.2012. This order was communicated to the respondents. However, instead of complying the said order, they chose to file W.A. Nos.5571/2013 and 64506500/2013 which were dismissed on 07.01.2015. It is contended that the respondent No.2 thereafter passed the impugned order dated 09.12.2015 to absorb the services of the petitioner at respondent No.4 which too was a sick Company. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the said order and has also sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 to 8 to absorb the petitioner at the present place where she is working.

¶40

When this writ petition was listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very same question came up for consideration before this Court in W.P. No.10575/2023 and a coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 18.07.2024, directed that the petitioners therein must be absorbed in the same Department where they were posted. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:

¶41

"[a] The petition is allowed declaring that the petitioners' absorption must be from

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39853 WP No. 56491 of 2015

¶43

the date they were sent on deputation to the concerned Local Body and that they must be admitted to all consequential financial benefits effective from such date but the interest payable at 6% per annum shall only be from the date of Notification of the Rules 2021.

¶44

(b) The petitioners are reserved with liberty to file a representation along with a certified copy of this order with the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka, within four[4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

(c) The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka, if a representation with a certified copy of this order is filed within four weeks from the date of receipt thereof, shall consider and pass just orders in the light of this Court's observations and conclusions as aforesaid within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of such representation."

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:39853 WP No. 56491 of 2015

¶48

He contends that this Court in W.P. No.10021/2020 (decided on 12.10.2023) had also considered the very same question and granted reliefs to the petitioners therein on the following lines:

¶49

"30. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the petitioners as employees who have been absorbed in the respective Government Departments where they were working on deputation, from 24.02.2003 and pay them all the consequential benefits including backwages including for the periods for which they had not rendered any service in the Government Departments because of the Government's action on asking them to be absorbed in Mysore Minerals.

¶50

31. Since the learned Additional Advocate General contends that all the petitioners were paid certain sums of money during the pendency of the petition, the State would be entitled to deduct the said sums which have been paid to the petitioners and pay the remainder to the petitioners.

¶51

32. The State would also be liable to pay the interest on the above mentioned financial benefits with effect from 03.10.2018 i.e., the date on which W.P. No.10842 to 10851 of 2016 was decided in favour of the petitioners at the rate of 8% per annum.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:39853 WP No. 56491 of 2015

¶54

33. The said exercise shall be undertaken and concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

34. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed ."

¶56

He, therefore, contends that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.10575/2023 and W.P. No.10021/2020 and therefore, prays that similar order be passed in the case of the petitioner herein also.

¶57

Learned Additional Government Advocate did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was deputed as a Stenographer in the office of respondent No.7. He also does not dispute that the State Government had taken a policy decision to absorb the ex-employees of the Company at the posts where they were deputed. He also does not dispute that similar questions which arose for consideration before this Court in W.P. No.10575/2023 and W.P. No.10021/2020 were disposed off and the petitioners therein were granted the benefit of being absorbed in the same posts where they were deputed. Therefore, the facts in the present case and the facts in the two

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39853 WP No. 56491 of 2015

¶59

aforesaid writ petitions decided by this Court are similar and therefore, the petitioners deserve to be treated similarly.

¶60

Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned order bearing No.ªÁPÉÊ 41 ¹EJ¯ï 2015 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated

¶61

09.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed. Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 to 8 are directed to absorb the petitioner in the Department of Revenue with all consequential benefits and continue her services at the respondent No.7. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶63

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

H S Madhumathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H S Madhumathi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S.N. Shekar Vs the Managing Director

Somashekaraiah Vs the Executive Engineer(Elec)

Smt. Srilakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Tummala Premakumar Vs the Board of Directors

Ibrahim Vs State of Karnataka

Dr H K S Swamy Vs State of Karnataka