SANNA FAKIRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners contend that, they have been serving as Daily Wage Workers in the Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, at Koppal District and their request for regularization has been rejected by the 4th respondent - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Koppal, by issuing an endorsement dated 06.06.2016 and corrected as 22.07.2016 at Annexure-N.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioners joined the service on various dates starting from 01.05.1994 to 01.06.2000, as found in the tabular column in the memorandum of writ petition. Learned counsel submits that, several Daily Wage Workers like the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in the Writ Petition Nos.8809/2006 and connected matters. It is further submitted that, the said writ petitions were disposed off by the order dated 03.04.2008 in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 736, directing the respondent-authorities to consider the case of each of the petitioners relating to their conditions of service in terms of the scheme or other provisions of law on the subject, taking into consideration the law laid down in Umadevi's case (supra). It is further submitted that, another batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.39117- 176/1999 were also filed by the Daily Wage Employees which were also referred to in the Writ Petition Nos.8809/2006 and connected matters. However, since no action was taken in respect of the directions given by this Court, the contempt proceedings in CCC No.669/2006 was initiated by the petitioners therein. When charges were framed in the contempt proceedings, the State Government approached the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3338/2014. It is submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disposed off the Civil Appeal No.3338/2014 [Malathi Das (Retd.) Now P.B.Mahishya and Ors. Vs. Suresh and Ors.,] by order dated 07.03.2014 with a direction to the respondent-authorities of the State to regularize the services of the respondents therein who were 74 in number, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out to several such directions given by this Court in various cases which have been cited in the memorandum of writ petition. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 4th respondent-Chief Executive Officer, could not have rejected the applications given by the petitioners seeking regularization on the ground that they were not parties to the proceedings in Writ Petition Nos.39117-176/1999 and Civil Appeal No.3338/2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L.Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247.