Allowed

Mrs Jayanthi v. the State O F Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024WP/7441/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed this writ petition filed by 64 gardeners praying for regularization of their services. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Malathi Das and a coordinate bench's order regarding the Horticulture Department, the court quashed the rejection and directed the respondents to regularize the petitioners under the 2002/2005 schemes within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement quashed; Respondents directed to regularize services and grant consequential benefits within two months.

Mrs Jayanthi Vs the State O F Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7441 OF 2021 (S-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS JAYANTHI D/O. RANAGANATH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶9

MAHADEVA S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶10

SIDDAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶11

T. GOVINDAPPA S/O. TIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

LAKKAMMA W/O. RAMU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶14

SHANKAR S/O. ANJANEYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶15

K. THIMMA S/O. KALIAYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶16

RAJU S/O. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶18

NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶19

GANGAPPA S/O. MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶20

CHANDARE GOWDA S/O. LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶21

M S SIDAMMA W/O. RANGANATH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶22

K. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. D K KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶23

YALLAMMA W/O. NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶24

K R PRASANNAIAH, S/O. K G RAJASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶25

NAGARAJ S/O. KEMPALINGAIAH @ JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶26

KEMPAMMA W/O. NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶27

KABBALIGOWDA S/O. ANNIKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶29

WORKING AS GARDENERS OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DIRECTOR AND DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENTS, CUBBON PARK AND LALBAGH, BANGALORE

¶30

NARASIMAIAH S/O. NARASHIMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶31

LAKSHMANA S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶32

MUDDEGOWDA S/O. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶33

SHAMBULINGA S/O. MADAV GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶34

VENKATEGOWDA S/O. HANUMIAHAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶35

KATTAKALLI THIMMAMMA W/O. MUDDIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶36

NARAYANASWAMY S/O. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶37

AKKAYAMMA W/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶38

PARVATHAMMA C/O. SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶39

SRIDHAR

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶42

S/O. LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶43

JAYAMMA W/O. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶44

CHINNASWAMY S/O. KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶45

LAKSHMAMMA W/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶46

RENUKA PRASAD S/O. REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶47

KEMPVEERIGOWDA S/O. MARIVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶48

BOREGOWDA S/O. BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶49

MALLIKARJUN S/O. MARIVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶50

SAKKAMMA W/O. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶51

KALAVATHI W/O. KODANDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶52

GOVINDAPPA S/O. KITTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶53

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶54

VENKATAPPA

¶55

S/O. RAMAIAH,

¶56

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶57

MUTTAIAH S/O. CHINGARI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶58

PUTTASWAMY S/O. ANDANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶59

JAYAMMA W/O. NARASHIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶60

JAYAMMA W/O. MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶61

GANGADHARA S/O. NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶62

CHIKKANNA

¶63

S/O. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶64

JAYAMMA

¶65

W/O. NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶66

BASAVARAJ S/O. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶67

CHINNAPPA S/O. MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶68

BAGHYAMMA

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶71

W/O. RANGABORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶72

SINGARAPA S/O. DODDABATTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶73

VENKATAMMA W/O. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶74

VENKATTARAMU S/O. YALLAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶75

MANGALAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶76

CHANDRAMMA W/O. KARAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶77

RUKMINIYAMMA W/O. VITTAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶78

MANJULA W/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶79

T. RAJU S/O. THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶80

MURTHI S/O. GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶81

PARVATAMMA W/O. HANUMAYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶82

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶83

MALLIKA W/O. PARASHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶84

LAKSHMAMMA W/O. BORLINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶85

HONNAIAH S/O. CHIKKAEDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶86

G. GOVINDAIAH S/O. GURUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶87

MAHADEVAPPA S/O. PUTTAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶88

PETITIONERS No.1 TO 64 ARE WORKING AS GARDENERS OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DIRECTOR AND DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENTS, CUBBON PARK AND LALBAGH, BANGALORE.

¶89

…PETITIONERS

¶90

(BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR N R., ADVOCATE)

¶91

AND:

¶92

THE STATE O F KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE, M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560001.

¶93

DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE KARNATAKA, LALBAGH, BANGALORE 560004.

¶94

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶95

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE CUBBON PARK, BANGALORE 560001

¶96

…RESPONDENTS

¶97

(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB., AAG ALONG WITH SMT. HEMALATHA.V., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶98

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-2 DTD 29.06.2019 REJECTING THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS TO REGULARIZE THEIR SERVICES VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶99

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶100

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶101

ORAL ORDER

¶102

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned endorsement by which their claim for regularization of their services has been rejected.

¶103

The petitioners are admittedly persons who joined the service of the Horticulture Department after 01.07.1984 and have been working ever since.

¶104

The respondents have rejected their claim for regularization on the ground that the posts to which they had been appointed were not sanctioned posts and that in

¶105

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶106

terms of judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi(3)¹ , they would not be entitled for regularization.

¶107

It may be pertinent to state here that the colleagues of the petitioners were one amongst the petitioners in the case of Malathi Das² , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that 74 employees involved therein were entitled for regularization and two of the 74 employees were, in fact, the colleagues of the petitioners who were also regularized. They therefore contend that their services should also be regualrised in the same manner as their colleagues, who were involved in Malathi Das, were regularized.

¶108

During the pendency of this petition, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.40204 of 2012³ connected with W.P. No.54553 of 2014, which were cases

¶109

1 Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1;

¶110

2 Malathi Das (Retired) Now P.b.Mahishy and others vs. Suresh and others, (2014) 13 SCC 449;

¶111

3 Writ Petition No.40204 of 2012 (Smt.Shanthalakshmi vs. State of Karnataka & others) connected with Writ Petition No.54553 of 2014 (M.Narayanaswamy & others vs. State of Karnataka) disposed of on 22.07.2024.

¶112

10 -

¶113

NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶114

relating to regularization of services of employees working in the Sericulture and Horticulture Departments (i.e., the same Department as that of the petitioners), has held them to be entitled to be regularized, and similar endorsements given by the Horticulture Department refusing the claim were quashed. The operative portion of said order reads as follows:

¶115

“ORDER

¶116

[a] The petitions are allowed quashing the impugned Endorsements dated 14.06.2010 and 15.06.2012 [Annexures – H and C] issued respectively by the corresponding third respondent in these petitions and declaring that the petitioners are entitled for regularization in terms of 2002/2005 Schemes.

¶117

[b] The corresponding second respondents in these petitions are directed to issue appropriate Orders in view of this Court’s declaration as aforesaid within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶118

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶119

[c] The petitioners are reserved liberty to file a representation enclosing a certified copy of this order with the corresponding respondents within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of such order.”

¶120

It is, therefore, clear that, in all, two employees from the decision of Malathi Das (supra) were regularized and 17 employees in W.P. No.54553 of 2014 were held to be entitled to have their services regularized in terms of 2002 / 2005 schemes.

¶121

In other words, in all, about 19 colleagues of the petitioners who were similarly placed have been regularized and it is only the service of the petitioners herein which is to be regularized.

¶122

If the Horticulture Department has suffered an order in Malathi Das (supra) and has regularized two of its employees, obviously, the same benefit will have to be

¶123

12 -

¶124

NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶125

given to the petitioners who were also working in the Horticulture Department.

¶126

The further fact that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also ordered regularization of 17 employees, who were colleagues of the petitioners in the very same Horticulture Department, also fortifies their case that they are entitled to be regularized in the same manner as the other 19 people.

¶127

It may be pertinent to notice here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Raman Kumar⁴ has held that the act of regularizing the services of some employees and not regularizing the services of others would be discriminatory and voilative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the decision in Raman Kumar reads as under:

¶128

4 Raman Kumar and others vs. Union of India and Others, SLP No.7898/2020 disposed of on 03.07.2023

¶129

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶130

more than ten years. Even this Court in the case of Ravi Verma and Others v. Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal No(s).27952796 of 2018) decided on 13.03.2018 found that the act of regularizing the services of some employees and not regularizing the services of the others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India .”

¶131

(emphasis supplied)

¶132

It may be pertinent to state here that in Raman Kumar’s case, Umadevi’s case (both supra) was also considered and the Apex Court has categorically held that there cannot be discrimination in the matter of regularization of employees. If one set of employees have been regularized, the very same benefit will have to be extended to the other group of employees.

¶133

In this view of the matter, since there is a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malathi Das and the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶134

14 -

¶135

NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶136

W.P. No.40204 of 2012 connected with W.P. No.54553 of

¶137

2014 ( supra ), it would be necessary to issue a direction to

¶138

the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of 2002 / 2005 schemes, referred to in W.P. No.54553 of 2014.

¶139

13. In the result, the following:

¶140

ORDER

¶141

(i) This writ petition is allowed .

¶142

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 29.06.2019 as at Annexure ‘A’ shall stand quashed .

¶143

(iii) The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders of regularization of services of the petitioners herein within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶144

(iv) The consequential benefits that the petitioners are entitled shall be computed and made over to them within a period two months.

¶145

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:41687 WP No. 7441 of 2021

¶146

(v) It is made clear that, if pursuant to the orders of regularization extended to other employees certain consequential benefits are extended to them, the same benefits shall be made over to the petitioners also.

¶147

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶148

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶149

RK CT: SN List No.: 1 SL No.: 45

Mrs Jayanthi v. the State O F Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Jayanthi v. the State O F Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Parwis @ Parwis Ullakhan Vs the Manager

Sri. Balaiah Vs Sri. C. Siddaraju

Sri. Sadiq Pasha @ Sadiq Khan Vs the Manager

Smt Dhatri Datta Vs Sri Arun P Parameshwaran

Sri. Siddaraju. H Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri M Balaji Vs Sri B P Rajendra