Partly allowed

Jyothi D/O. Satwaji Atwadkar v. Primary Cooperative Agriculture and

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/77026/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination as a daily wage employee appointed after regularization amendments. The Single Judge held appointment illegal but awarded lump-sum compensation considering 18 years of service to avoid injustice, following Ashok Kumar Sharma ratio.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to petitioner with 6% interest if not paid within three months.

Jyothi D/O. Satwaji Atwadkar Vs Primary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13023 WP No. 77026 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.77026 OF 2013 (S-DIS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JYOTHI D/O. SATWAJI ATWADKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE PCA, AND RD BANK, JAGALBAT, JOIDA TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY MISS. PRANJALI G. GODAKHINDI, ADV. FOR SRI V. P. KULKARNI, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, JAGALBAT, SUPA, U.K. DIST, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

COMMON CADRE AUTHORITY FOR EMPLOYEES OF PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS, ALUR VENKATRAO ROAD, BANGALORE, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI M.M.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 26.09.2012 PASSED BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F bearing no. � � � � �� INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO TERMINATION OF THE PETITIONER. Also QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1^st RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2012 IN NO.109/2012-13, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13023 WP No. 77026 of 2013

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging Circular dated 26.09.2012 issued by

¶24

respondent no.2 at Annexure-F and endorsement dated 02.11.2012 at Annexure-G, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Miss.Pranjali G.Godakhindi, learned counsel

¶26

appearing for Sri V.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as daily wage clerk by respondent no.1 on 11.03.1994 and serving as such from said date. It was submitted, petitioner hails from poor family and as wages received were not sufficient for her to survive, she sought regularization of her appointment and increase her salary proportionate to work. It was submitted, though under provisions of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, upon amendment and insertion of Section 128A, Common Cadre Authority was empowered with appointment, transfer and to take disciplinary action against employees of CoOperative Societies, Common Cadre Authority was constituted much later. In meanwhile, Societies had resorted to appointment on daily wages to cope up with workload.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13023 WP No. 77026 of 2013

¶29

Petitioner was one of such employees and who had worked more than 10 years. Since Common Cadre Authority intended to terminate her services, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.no.20821/2001. Same was disposed of on 31.05.2002 and directed respondents to consider representation of petitioner for regularization and until consideration directed them not to terminate her services.

¶30

In pursuance of same, petitioner submitted

¶31

representation for regularization. But representation was rejected by an endorsement on ground that petitioner’s appointment was irregular. Questioning same, petitioner had filed W.P.no.30513/2002. But said writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn by her counsel without her instructions. On that ground Common Cadre Authority had

¶32

rejected request for regularization. It was submitted withdrawal of writ petition would not curtail right of petitioner to seek regularization. Therefore, she submitted one more representation. On said representation, Common

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13023 WP No. 77026 of 2013

¶35

Cadre Authority passed an order on 22.09.2004. Said order was questioned in W.P.no.41835/2004. Said writ petition was allowed in part on 13.02.2007 by directing consideration of petitioner’s representation after affording reasonable opportunity, within four months. Before consideration of petitioner’s representation for regularization, respondent no.2 had issued a Circular dated 26.09.2012 directing all CoOperative Banks to terminate services of daily wage employees appointed after 31.10.1992.

¶36

In pursuance of same, without considering petitioner’s claim for regularization as directed by this Court, respondent no.1 issued order dated 02.11.2012 at Annexure-G. It was submitted, petitioner having worked for more than 10 years i.e., from 1994 till 2012, she was entitled for consideration for regularization. As her services were illegally terminated, she was constrained to file this writ petition and sought for allowing writ petition.

¶37

On other hand, Sri M.M.Hiremath, learned counsel

¶38

for respondent no.1 and Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13023 WP No. 77026 of 2013

¶40

Government Pleader for respondent no.2 sought to oppose

¶41

writ petition.

¶42

It was submitted as petitioner’s appointment was on daily wages after amendment to Section 128A of CoOperative Societies Act, appointment by management would be irregular. However, in view of issuance of Circular by respondent no.2 at Annexure-F, appointment on daily wages was viewed illegal and direction issued to terminate services of all daily wage employees appointed after 31.10.1992. In view of same, termination was consequential to Annexure-F and petitioner cannot claim to be aggrieved by same.

¶43

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶44

submitted that, admittedly, appointment of petitioner on daily wage by respondent no.1 was not only irregular but also illegal, since same was after amendment to CoOperative Society Act inserting Section 128A and constituting Common Cadre Authority. Therefore, respondent had issued Circular to curtail illegal appointments. In view of same,

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13023 WP No. 77026 of 2013

¶47

there was no error or illegality insofar as Circular and same

¶48

did not warrant interference.

¶49

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶50

record.

¶51

From above, it is seen that petitioner claims to

¶52

have worked on daily wages on appointment by respondent no.1 in year 1994. It is seen that petitioner had earlier filed representations claiming regularization and writ petitions were filed for direction to consider same. During pendency of representation for consideration, respondent no.1, apparently on basis of Circular issued at Annexure-F proceeded to issue order of termination as per Annexure-G. Appointment on daily wages would appear to be illegal since it was after vesting of power of appointment of employees to

¶53

Co-Operative Societies with Common Cadre Authority.

¶54

Therefore, appointment of petitioner on daily

¶55

wages would be per-se illegal. On said count, petitioner’s claim for regularization would have to be rejected. However,

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13023 WP No. 77026 of 2013

¶57

since petitioner has served respondent no.1 for a period of 18 years after date of initial appointment, it would be appropriate to award lump-sum compensation to petitioner in lieu of claim for regularization.

¶58

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi Flight Services reported in (2010) 1 SCC 142, has held, where a direction for reinstatement would not be feasible, it would be appropriate to award lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Taking note of fact that petitioner has served respondent no.1 for no less than 18 years, writ petition is disposed of following said ratio and directing respondent no.1 to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to petitioner within three months from today.

¶59

In case of failure, said amount shall carry interest at rate of 6% per annum.

¶60

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

CT-ASC : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Jyothi D/O. Satwaji Atwadkar v. Primary Cooperative Agriculture and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothi D/O. Satwaji Atwadkar v. Primary Cooperative Agriculture and

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

Arjun S/O Basavaraj Hyadal Vs the State of Karnataka

Alina D/O Jameelahmed Punekar Vs Shri Jameelahmed S/O Maheboobsab Punekar

Anita Patil D/O. Veeranagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Prasanth Babaji Vs the State of Karnataka

Vimala D/O Mahadev Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

S I Ankali Vs the State of Karnataka