T.R. SRINIVAS Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (WEST), B.B.M.P., BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Aswathanaryana Reddy, Adv for Petitioner Mr. V. Sreenidhi, Adv for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 The petitioner T.R. Srinivas is aggrieved by the substitution of his contract of cleaning of Ward No. 120-B by providing manpower of 10 municipal workers (poura karmikas) for cleaning of the said Ward No. 120-B.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner has been assigned the said job of cleaning Ward No. 120-B on 25-8-2012 which was later on extended on 29-1-2013. He also submitted that his mother Smt. Chikkanalli retired from the post of Sweeper/Poura Karmiki on 31-3-2004. The case sought to be made out in the present writ petition is that the respondents-authorities of the BBMP have suddenly substituted the petitioner by another person Sri S. Kemparaju with effect from 1-4-2016 by issuing Work Order, Annexure-N for cleaning of the said Ward No. 120-B and that has been done on the basis of a complaint or representation of the local Municipal Corporator Mr. D. Pramod for Ward No. 120-B, Annexure-J, a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition in which the said Corporator has written to the Joint Commissioner (West), BBMP, Bangalore that the contractor Srinivas, the present petitioner, is not performing the work properly and in this regard complaints were received from general public and therefore it was requested to cancel his contract and issue work order to one Kemparaju who is also the son of a municipal worker. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the substitution of the present petitioner has been done for extraneous reasons and without affording an opportunity of hearing to him, a third party Sri Kemparaju has been substituted to undertake the said work of cleaning of Ward No. 120-B.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3-Mr. Sreenidhi however opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and urged that there is no vested right of the petitioner to continue with the said work for indefinite period as no such contract of a fixed period has been executed in his favour and on the basis of the local complaints against him conveyed through the elected person - Corporator, notices were issued to the petitioner by the Competent Authorities of the respondent-BBMP to which no satisfactory reply was given by the petitioner and on account of his inability to perform the said cleaning work properly, the respondent-BBMP was at liberty and bound to give such work of cleaning of Ward No. 120-B to some third party. He submitted that there were no mala-fides against the petitioner while removing and substituting him with another person to provide manpower of 10 municipal workers to undertake the work of cleaning of the said Ward.