SUBBALAKSHMI W/O LATE SANNAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THE COMMISSIOENR AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of the services of her husband on par with 31 candidates' regularized on 21.07.2007.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 though served is unrepresented.

(3.) THE Petitioner is the wife of one late Sannappa, who is said to have joined the services of the fourth Respondent with effect from 25.12.1988 as a labour on daily wage basis. The said Sannappa died on 01.04.2007. Prior to his death, the husband of the Petitioner Sannappa and several others, who worked on daily wages as like that of Sannappa were being considered for regularization under a scheme. Accordingly, the list of persons who were entitled to regularization in all numbering 33 was prepared to be sent by the fourth Respondent for the purpose of regularization. Subsequently, only 31 names were forwarded and the same was considered and the regularization was effected. Since by such time, the husband of the Petitioner had expired, the case of the husband of the Petitioner was not forwarded for consideration. Though as on the date of actual regularization the husband of the Petitioner had expired, the manner of regularization of other 31 persons would indicate that the regularization was with effect from an earlier date i.e., after the period of completion of initial 10 years on daily wage basis. In the case of the husband of the Petitioner, it is not in dispute that he had worked from the year 1988 and if he was alive at the time of regularization and in normal procedure as adapted in the case of others, he would have been entitled to regularization with effect from 1998. The important aspect of the matter that the regularization was with effect from a retrospective date becomes relevant for consideration of the case of the Petitioner in the instant case as it would entail several consequential benefits.