STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NEELAPPA G. HAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein who were the applicants before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi, (for short the Tribunal) in Application No.437 & 438/2017 had sought to quash the impugned endorsements bearing No.A3/DPT/Dinagooli/Nou/CR- /2016-17/206 dated 04/16.05.2016 and dated 04.05.2016 issued by the 4th respondent (Annexures-A- 15 and A-16) and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants as has been done in Narasimha Raju and others case with effect from the date of completion of ten years of service as daily wage employees, with all consequential monetary and service benefits, wherein the Tribunal by order dated 25.10.2019 set aside the impugned endorsements and directed the appellants herein to "consider" the case of the applications in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M.L.KESARI , 2010 9 SCC 247, MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B.MAHISHY AND OTHERS VS. SURESH AND OTHERS (CIVIL APPEAL No.3338/2014,2014 13 SCC 247, UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL in CIVIL APPEAL No.175-176/2019 decided on 08.01.2019 , 2019 4 SCC 290 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the respondents herein/applicants before the Tribunal that they are daily wage employees working as Wireless Operator and Watcher respectively. The applicant No.1 is working in the office of the Range Forest Officer, Ranebennur and applicant No.2 is working in the office of the Range Forest Officer, Hangal, in the Forest Department and they have served for more than 30 long years. The applicants names are entered in the Muster Rolls (MR) and they are discharging their duties, sincerely and honestly to the best satisfaction of their superior officers as on the date of the applications filed.

(3.) It was further contended by them that similarly situated persons in the case of NARASIMHA RAJU AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (W.P.No.40835-838/1999 DATED 01.03.2000) , this Court directed the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners therein, who had completed ten years of service on daily wage basis. The said order passed in W.P.Nos.40835-838/1999 was challenged by the respondent/State Government in W.A.Nos.6660-6663/2000 wherein the division bench of this Court dismissed the said writ appeals on 30.01.2001. The order passed by the division bench of this Court in the Writ Appeals was subject matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.8988- 8991/2000, whereby the said appeals were dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 09.07.2001 upholding the decisions of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court as per Annexurse-A5 and A6. Thereafter, implementing the decisions of this Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court, the 1st respondent/State Government passed an order dated 25.08.2001 regularising the services of the said officials (Shri Narasimha Raju and others) whose names were entered in the Muster Rolls and who had completed ten years of service. The respondents in the present case approached the authorities to regularize their services as they had also completed more than ten years of service and were also similarly situated as in the case of Narasimha Raju and others. Unfortunately, the authorities by the impugned endorsement dated 04/16.05.2016 and 04.05.2016 as per Annexures-A15 and 16 rejected the claim of the applicants which was the subject matter before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.437 and 438/2017. Considering the objections filed by the State Government and after hearing both the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 allowed the applications by setting aside the endorsements dated 04/16.05.2016 and 04.05.2016 at Annexures-A15 and A16 and has directed the respondents/State to consider the case of the applicants in view of the dictums rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of;