SHYLA SHIVAPPA BUDIHAL Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State Administrative Tribunal (for short the 'KAT'), Bengaluru have filed the present writ petitions for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.04.2017 - Annexure-A passed by the KAT and for directions directing the respondents to regularize their services as Motivators and grant pay on par with pay of Group-D post i.e., Rs.9600-200-12000-250-13000-300-14200- 350-14550 with allowances and other service benefits and extend new pension scheme insofar as petitioners are concerned and to grant consequential benefits in accordance with law.

(2.) It is the case of the present petitioners that they were appointed as Motivators in the year 1984-85 in Forest Department on part time and temporary basis on a monthly honorarium of Rs.250/-, which has been revised from time to time and presently at Rs.8,000/-. Even though they are continuously working on par with the regular employees, their services have not been regularized; that even Group-D employees in the Department are given pay scale of Rs.9600-14550/- but even the minimum of the said pay scale is not paid to them. They have submitted representations to the respondents praying for regularization of their services and grant of pay scale attached to the Group-D post. Inspite of representations the respondents neither considered nor passed any orders. Therefore, the present petitioners were constrained to file applications. Therefore, the petitioners and other applicants filed Applications No.2227 to 2303 of 2017 before the KAT praying to direct the respondents to consider the applicants' representation and to regularize their services and grant them pay scale attached to Group-D post and all other benefits including new pension scheme. The KAT at the stage of admission itself considering the pleadings proceeded to reject all the applications by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed.

(3.) Sri S.Narayan Nagesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the KAT rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners and others is erroneous and contrary to material on record. He would further contend that all the petitioners are working for more than 30 years under second respondent on par with the regular employees in the sanctioned posts. Even after lapse of 30 years, respondents have not opened their eyes and almost all the petitioners have now become age bar and some of them are married and some of them have already retired. The inaction on the part of the State Government in not considering the applications of petitioners for regularization of their services, they are driven before the Court. Unfortunately, the KAT has not considered the material on record in a proper perspective thereby erroneously rejected the applications of the petitioners at the stage of admission itself.