DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT Vs. K.RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed by the respondent in Writ Petition Nos.58808 to 58809 of 2013 assailing the Order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and directed the respondent to reconsider the services of the petitioners and absorb/ regularize their services from the date of their appointment and on par with the similarly situated employees who were regularized as per the Government Order dated 22.12.2012 and extend all monetary benefits to the petitioners.

(2.) The facts as stated in W.P. Nos.58808 to 58809 of 2013 are that the petitioners were employed as Bill Collectors at Kacharakanahalli and Subramanyapura Gram Panchayat respectively in terms of the resolutions dated 30.10.1989 and 30.12.1992. At the time of their appointment as Bill Collectors, there were no recruitment Rules that were framed specifying the qualification for the post of Bill Collector. The Government of Karnataka in exercise of its powers under Section 349 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, issued a notification dated 29.12.1993 declaring the villages lying within Bengaluru District as Notified Area Committees with effect from 15.12.1993. Consequently, the Grama Panchayats where the petitioners were working were amalgamated into Devarajeevanahalli Notified Area Committee and Sarakki Notified Area Committee respectively. It is stated that the Government of Karnataka issued an order on 10.01.1994 determining the staffing pattern and mode of recruitment of employees in Panchayats including qualification to post of Bill Collectors. During the year 1995, the Government issued notification whereby the Notified Area Committees were constituted as City Municipal Councils and consequently, the Devarajeevanahalli Notified Area Committee in which the petitioner No.1 was working was merged with the City Municipal Council, Byatarayanapura while the Sarakki Notified Area Committee where the petitioner No.2 was working was amalgamated with the City Municipal Council, Pattanagere. The Government thereafter issued an official memorandum dated 19.04.1996 redeploying the staff of the erstwhile Notified Area Committees stipulating that the staff of the erstwhile Devarajeevanahalli and Sarakki Notified Areas Committees would be merged with the City Municipal Council, Byatarayanapura and Pattanagere respectively. As a result, the petitioners continued in the respective City Municipal Councils as Bill Collectors. The petitioners were provided with equal pay in terms of the orders dated 06.08.1999 and 30.09.1999.

(3.) The Government issued an order dated 15.11.2006, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS, 2006 4 SCC 1 relating to regularization of daily wage employees working in various municipalities in the State of Karnataka. Pursuant to the said Government order, the service particulars of the petitioners were sent to the respondent No.2 by the respective City Municipal Councils for regularization of the services. When the case of the petitioners was not considered, the petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petition No.19823 of 2007 before this Court for consideration of their claim for regularization and this Court disposed off the writ petition by order dated 14.12.2007 directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. The appellant herein without considering the request of the petitioners, passed an order dated 28.04.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioners stating that they did not possess the requisite qualification as on the date of appointment as Bill Collectors in their respective Grama Panchayats. The petitioners were therefore, constrained to again challenge the aforesaid endorsement in Writ Petition No.13532 of 2008. This Court in terms of the order dated 11.06.2009, directed the respondent - appellant herein to reconsider the case by taking into consideration the Government Order dated 10.01.1994 and directed that the suitable orders be passed. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the respondent again in terms of its order dated 22.12.2012 rejected the claim of the petitioners for regularization holding that the petitioners did not possess the requisite educational qualification as on the date of appointment as Bill Collectors. The petitioners, therefore, are before this Court in the present writ petitions challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the respondent and for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent to regularize their services as was done in the case of 62 other Bill Collectors, with effect from the date of they completing 10 years of service as daily wagers. The respondent countenanced the writ petitions by contending that the Government is entitled to prescribe qualification with prospective or retrospective effect and that the petitioners who do not possess the qualification prescribed cannot seek absorption or regularization. It was also countered that the notification impugned was in consonance with the Rules and Regulations for deploying the posts.