BASALINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the above writ petition sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of Bill Collector with effect from 01.11.2005 by considering the proposal submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide communications dated 28.06.2007 and 03.12.2008, as per Annexures 'B' and 'F' respectively and further to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner, with retrospective effect.

(2.) THAT the petitioner was appointed as a Bill Collector on daily -wage basis by respondent No.5/Panchayath with effect from 01.08.1994 and the said appointment was against the sanctioned post and taking into consideration the unblemished service rendered by the petitioner, respondent No.2, by his order dated 20.10.1999 was pleased to extend the benefit of equal pay to equal work and also other benefits which was given to the permanent employees who were working in the cadre as that of the petitioner. The petitioner further contended that in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMADEVI and OTHERS, 2006 4 SCC 1, petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his service, since he has fulfilled all the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. Inspite of the recommendations made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 / Deputy Commissioner and Project Director, District Urban Development Cell, till today, respondent No.2 has not considered the recommendation dated 28.06.2007 and the recommendations made by the authorities stated above. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner in his recommendation dated 28.06.2007 has specifically stated that the petitioner was appointed on 01.08.1994 as Bill Collector against the vacant post, to which he was eligible and he has continuously served for ten years, without intervention of the orders of the Court/Tribunal.

(3.) SRI .A.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that though the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no impediment for respondent No.2 to consider and pass order, considering the recommendations made by respondent Nos.3 and 4. But, till, today, respondent No.2 has not passed any order. It amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.