State of Karnataka Vs Smt.Sandhya V.K.

SMT. SANDHYA V.K. W/O SALUMAN M R, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS MICROBIOLOGIST, O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, VIRUS DIAGNOSTIC LAB, B H ROAD, OPP SCOUT BHAVAN, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.7718/2015 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/01/2020 IN APPLICATION NO.7718/2015 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46413-DB WP No. 10089 of 2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶35

The State and its Officers are aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2020 in Application No.7718/2015 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal' ]. The respondent, in filing this application in No.7718/2015, has called in question the stipulation in the Government Order dated 14.10.2014 that her service as a contractual employee shall not be computed for the service benefits, including her seniority.

¶36

The undisputed facts are that the

¶37

respondent was in employment with the Health and

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46413-DB WP No. 10089 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Family Welfare Services Department as a

¶41

Microbiologist and she has entered such service on a contract after the Notification dated 21.07.1986. The respondent, on completion of continuous service of over 10 years, has availed the remedy with the Tribunal in Application No.14596/2002 for directions to regularise her services as a Microbiologist. The Tribunal has allowed this application on 28.08.2013 opining that the respondent must be regularised given the parameters discussed by the Apex Court in

¶42

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. Umadevi and Ors¹ and the State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. M.

¶43

L. Kesari and others² .

¶44

The respondent has pursued her

¶45

grievance in applying for initiation of contempt proceedings with the Tribunal in CTA No.142/2014 and it is during the pendency of this application that

¶46

1 (2006) 4 SCC 1

¶47

2 (2010) 9 SCC 247

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46413-DB WP No. 10089 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the order dated 14.10.2014 is issued with the stipulation that her services on contract basis may not be considered for her service benefits, including seniority. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the objections on behalf of the petitioners against quashing the condition. The petitioners, as seen from the Tribunal's impugned order, have referred to certain petitions pending with the Apex Court without furnishing the details of such petition and they have also proposed to rely upon the terms of the Tribunal's Order dated 28.08.2013.

¶51

At this stage, this Court must observe that

¶52

the details of the petition with the Apex Court that could support the condition has not been placed on record even in the present state. The respondent's right to regularisation stems from the Tribunal's Order dated 28.08.2013 and nothing is pointed out from this order to justify the imposition of the condition. Significantly, the settled position is that an

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46413-DB WP No. 10089 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

employer such as the State Government cannot be permitted to take advantage of continuing a person on contract when he/she is legally appointed by denying the benefit of such service when there is regularisation. This Court may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Pat el [ 2022 SCC Online SC 2004] . In the light of the above, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

a. The petition stands disposed of reiterating the Tribunal's direction to count the respondent's services while on contract and admit her to all benefits that would be to her.

¶58

b. The needful shall be done within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶59