Sri B S Shankara Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA MUNCIPALITIES (ABSORPTION OF THE EMPLOYEES APPOINTED UNDER THE SCHEME OF SWARNA JAYANTHI SHAHARI ROZGAR YOJANA (SJSRY) IN URBAN LOCAL BODIES) (AMENDMENT) RULES 2008, PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 04.08.2009 RETROSPECTIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM 28.10.2005 ANNX-L IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARREARS OF PAY, ANNUAL INCREMENTS, REFIXATION OF PAY, SENIORITY, TIME BOUND PROMOTIONS, EARNED LEAVE, CREATION OF SERVICE REGISTER, FIXATION OF PENSION UNDER OLD SCHEME AND GRANT OF ALL OTHER BENEFITS AS APPLICABLE TO A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE WITH EFFECT FROM 28.10.2005.

¶29

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

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:40807 WP No. 28780 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioners have filed this writ petition inter alia

¶36

seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the set of representations vide Annexures "AG", "AG1", "AM" and "AN".

¶37

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶38

The petitioners were working as "Community Affairs Officer" in respondent No.4 Institute, on contract basis under Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rozgar Yojana Scheme ("SJSRY Scheme") with effect from 27.03.1998. It is contented that on 28.10.2005, the Absorption Rules were framed by the State Government for absorption of the employees working under respondent No.2 under various cadres. It is submitted that as per the Notification dated 28.10.2005 vide Annexure "K", the Rules called the Karnataka Municipalities (Absorption of the

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:40807 WP No. 28780 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Employees Appointed under the Scheme of Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rozgar Yojana in Urban Local Bodies) Rules, 2005 [" the Rules of 2005 ", for short] came to be framed, which provided for the absorption of those employees under the aforesaid Scheme on contract basis in the corresponding category of the posts, and pay-scales from the date of commencement of the Rules.

¶43

The petitioners submitted a set of representations, vide Annexures "AG", "AG1", "AM" and "AN" requesting to give effect to the Rules of 2005 from the date of enactment insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The respondents have not considered the representations submitted by the petitioners. Hence,

¶44

the petitioners filed this petition inter alia seeking for a mandamus to consider the representations made by the petitioners vide Annexures "AG", "AG1", "AM" and "AN" in terms of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H.L.

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:40807 WP No. 28780 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Gopalaswamy v. The State of Karnataka and

¶49

another in W.P. No.34170 of 2016, disposed of on 27.07.2022.

¶50

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State has framed the Rules in 2005 and the petitioners are entitled to the benefit under the Rules of 2005. However, the respondents are giving effect to the Rules prospective and not retrospective. He submits that in an identical matter, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners from the date of enactment of the Rules of 2005. He submits that the petitioners are entitled to the same benefit on the ground of parity. Hence on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:40807 WP No. 28780 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate

¶56

submits that if reasonable time is granted to the respondents, the respondents would consider the representations submitted by the petitioners, in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of

¶57

H.L. Gopalaswamy (supra) .

¶58

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶59

There is no dispute regarding the petitioners working in the respondents' Institution. There is also no dispute that in 2005 the State Government enacted the Rules of 2005 and the said Rules were amended in 2008. The petitioners and the other employees were entitled to the benefit under the Rules of 2005.

¶60

The petitioners and the other similarly placed persons submitted representations to the State Government to consider their request with effect from the date of enactment of the Rules of 2005.

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:40807 WP No. 28780 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Similarly placed persons approached this Court in

¶65

W.P. No.34170 of 2016. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2022 disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner therein and reserved a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the State Government seeking consequential benefits of service as well as financial benefits, and directed the respondent-State to consider the same and to pass an appropriate order.

¶66

In the instant case, the petitioners submitted a set of representations vide Annexures "AG", "AG1", "AM" and "AN". The respondents have not considered the set of representations submitted by the petitioners. The respondents being responsible authority, when a representation of any party is received by them, they are under an obligation to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law.

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:40807 WP No. 28780 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondents have

¶71

not passed any order on the representations submitted by the petitioners.

¶72

Considering the order passed by this Court in H.L. Gopalaswamy (supra), and in view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(I) The writ petition is allowed in part .

¶75

(II) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the set of representations submitted by the petitioners vide Annexures "AG", "AG1", "AM" and "AN"; and while considering the representations, the respondents are directed to take into consideration the order passed by this Court in the case of H.L. Gopalaswamy (supra), and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶76