STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. H GANESH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ appeals arise out of the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein who are working as second division assistants and typists in the commercial taxes department of Karnataka state. They were initially appointed by the deputy commissioner (ct) of various places mostly during the years 1985 and 1986 on daily wages at Rs. 15/- per day. Their temporary appointments were subject to termination on appointment of regular candidates selected by Karnataka public service commission. Some of the appointments were for duration of four months or so, which were later on extended from time to time. There was an interview and selection before such appointment orders were issued though the details and modalities of such selection are not available. The respondents were appointed against the existing vacancies of sanctioned posts. It transpires from the correspondence that the commissioner of commercial taxes has been pleading for extension of services of these daily wage employees till the candidates selected by service commission were allotted. He also addressed letters to the government to regularise services of similarly situated employees in implementation of the orders of this court in certain other writ petitions. As the government did not concede to the request of the petitioners for regularisation, they approached this court under article 226 of the Constitution seeking regularisation of their services and to extend the benefit of equal pay on par with the regular employees in view of the judgment of this court in umadevi v secretary, finance department, state of karnataka. By the judgment dated 29-7-1999, these writ petitions were disposed of by raveendran, j. , with the following directions:

(2.) THE learned single judge referred to the government order dated 6-8-1990 directing daily wage employees appointed on or before 1-7-1984 should be brought on to the monthly rated establishment. The said government order was issued in the wake of the decision of the supreme court in dharwad district p. w. d. literate daily wages employees' association and others v state of Karnataka and others, while holding that the government order dated 6-8-1990 has no application to the writ petitioners' cases, the learned judge however held that on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applied by the Supreme Court in various pronouncements and the long-standing continuous service that the petitioners have put in, their claim for regularisation deserves to be considered and they should also be extended the benefit of regular payscales.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed further, we may refer to umadevi's case, supra, which was a decision rendered by a division bench in the writ petitions filed by the daily wage employees of the same department. In umadevi's case, supra, this court noticed that the petitioners, who were appointed as typists/second division clerks in commercial taxes department during the years 1985-1987, completed 12 years of service by the date of filing of the writ petition. The learned judges referred to the letter of the commissioner of commercial taxes dated 31-10-1994, addressed to the chief secretary, wherein the commissioner recommended for regularisation of services of the petitioners, since they were working against the vacant posts available and were discharging same duties as that of the regularly appointed employees and have acquired sufficient experience. He also recommended for sanctioning the same pay as that of regular employees. The division bench referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision in ashwani kumar and others v state of Bihar and others and also the decisions in which principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was applied and directed the respondentauthorities to consider the case of petitioners for regularisation on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in ashwani kumar's case, supra. A direction was issued to pay the same salary and allowances as are paid to the regular employees of the same rank with effect from the date of their respective appointments. The Supreme Court granted special leave and stayed the operation of the said judgment insofar as it directed payment of salary and allowance from the date of appointment. Applying the ratio of the said decision in quite a number of writ petitions filed by the employees of the commercial tax department, directions were given to regularise the services of those who had put in more than 10 years of service. Such orders passed by the learned single judges were confirmed in a series of writ appeals viz. , w. a. nos. 2235 to 2237, 4022 and 4088 of 2000 etc. Thus, it can almost be said that the issue is no more res integra. However, a recent decision of division bench of this court in state of Karnataka and others v Karnataka casual and daily rated workers' union, hubli, has given scope to the respondents to resist the claims of the writ petitioners. As this judgment of division bench is the sheet-anchor of the appellants' contention, let us examine what was held therein and to what extent the ratio of that decision will apply to the present case. In that case, the order of the learned single judge directing consideration of the request of the writ petitioners, who were working as casual and daily rated employees of zilla parishats and other local bodies, for absorption and regularisation in accordance with the observations made by the supreme court in similar cases, was set aside. The decision in raghupathigowda's case, was held to be per incuriam being opposed to the decisions of the Supreme Court and therefore not a binding precedent.