SUJATHA A. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 6.1.2012 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.5980/2009 is called in question in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar, Mangalore, dispensing the services of the petitioner and others with effect from the afternoon of 5.10.2009.

(2.) The records reveal that the petitioner was initially permitted to work as copyist in the office of the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, on 31.10.1983 as per Annexure -C. Such permission granted in favour of the petitioner to work as copyist in the office of the Land Tribunal, Mangalore was continued from time to time and she was shifted to work at different offices at Mangalore. In all such offices, she worked as copyist only. Ultimately, her services were dispensed as per the order at Annexure -A, dated 5.10.2009. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and similarly placed persons had made representations to regularize their services and such request also came to be rejected. The order dated 5.10.2009 at Annexure -A came to be challenged by the petitioner and another lady by name Shashikala before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application Nos.5046 & 5058/2009. The said applications came to be dismissed on 6.1.2012. Both the orders at Annexures -A and B are called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) We find from the records that the petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned or temporary post. She was merely permitted to work as copyist in the office of the Land Tribunal, Mangalore. Similarly, certain other persons were also permitted to work as copyists and comparers in the office of the Land Tribunal, Mangalore and other Land Tribunals in the State in view of accumulation of huge work during the relevant point of time. In order to cater the needs of the public at large, such temporary arrangement was made by the State Government. The petitioner and other persons, who were permitted to work as copyists, were not paid by the State Government. However, the payment of the petitioner was being made based on the work they used to turn out, that too from out of the amount collected by the office of the Land Tribunal in the form of copying charges. 80% of the fees so collected was paid to copyists and the remaining 20% was being paid to the persons who used to compare the draft with the original. The same is clear from Annexure -R, dated 26.12.2003. The amount of copying charges was directly paid by the persons who obtain copies from the office of the Land Tribunal and the entire amount collected in the form of fees/charges was paid to the copyists (80%) and to comparers (20%). Not even a single paise was utilized by the State Government. So also not even a single paise was paid by the State Government to the copyists and comparers.