Common order dismissing writ petitions challenging a Tribunal order conferring temporary status on employees. The court held the petitions were misconceived and directed authorities to act. Interim orders were vacated.
Writ petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated; pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO
WRI T PETI TI ON Nos.27176, 38423 and 38985 of 2012; 10473 and 19462 of 2013 and 18558 of 2014
COMMON ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)
Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases, Sri D.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.27176 of 2012 and Sri M.V.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.Nos.38423 & 38985 of 2012, 10473 & 19462 of 2013 and 18558 of 2014.
These writ petitions stand on par with W.P.No.9590 of 2013 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2018. Be it noted that the only direction granted by the Tribunal in the O.As., which was the cause for grievance in these writ petitions, was to confer temporary status upon the applicants in the said O.As. from the dates they became eligible for grant of such temporary status.
Sri M.V.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents in these writ petitions, would bring it to the notice of the Court that there were three categories of employees who were entitled to be conferred temporary status - those who came under the ambit of the Circular issued by the authorities in the year 1993; those who were covered by the direction of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA V/ s. UMADEVI1 in terms of having completed ten years of service by the date of the said judgment without the protection of any court orders; and those who came into service only after the year 1996 and did not come within the ambit of the second category. Learned counsel would further
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1
2
state that by virtue of the interim suspension granted by this Court, the entire process of conferring temporary status came to a grinding halt.
As observed in the order dated 12.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.9590 of 2013, we are at a loss to understand as to why the Union of India and its officials chose to file these writ petitions when it was for them to act upon the directions of the Tribunal and grant relief only when the requirements were duly satisfied. The writ petitions, in their very inception, were therefore utterly misconceived and are accordingly dismissed.
We leave it open to the respondents in these writ petitions to make suitable representations to the authorities concerned citing as to how they would come within one of the aforestated three categories and how they would be entitled to conferment of temporary status. The authorities shall thereupon take appropriate action as directed by the Tribunal.
Interim orders granted in these cases shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
_________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J _________________ M. GANGA RAO, J Date: 29.11.2018 GJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the filing of these writ petitions against the Tribunal's order was appropriate given the Tribunal's direction to the authorities to grant temporary status.
Why the Union of India and its officials filed these writ petitions despite being the proper authorities to implement the Tribunal's directions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. UmadeviReferred¶6
SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA V/.UMADEVI
Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu
Union of India
Sanjay Kumar
M. Ganga Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
