Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 209 (KAR)

S. L. Papa Reddy v. State of Karnataka

2014-02-21

B.S.PATIL

body2014
Judgment : 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents to consider the representations submitted by him for his absorption as an employee of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'the BBMP'). 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in Gudibande Town Panchayath on daily wage basis with effect from 25.04.1991. After completion of requisite number of years of service and pursuant to a decision taken to regularize the services of such employees, the State Government has passed an order on 06.06.2012 to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 23.04.2001. This order is produced at Annexure-B. 3. The State Government has constituted BBMP by merging seven City Municipal Council, one Town Municipality and several villages in and around Bangalore. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that Town Panchayath, *Bomma.nah.aUi CMC where he was working has become part of BBMP. Several officials who were working in various City Municipal Council gave representations to the 3rd respondent - BBMP giving consent for their absorption as employees of BBMP. Petitioner has also given such a representation. The 3rd respondent - BBMP prepared a list of employees working in the erstwhile City Municipal Council and the local bodies for being absorbed as employees of BBMP, but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the said list. Aggrieved by the same, on 19.02.2008, petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-D to consider his name for absorption into BBMP. Petitioner has also given the consent form dated 13.03.2008 vide Annexure-E for being absorbed as an employee of the BBMP. 5. On 12.03.2008, the BBMP vide Annexure-F forwarded the list of employees who had consented to be absorbed into BBMP to the State Government wherein the name of the petitioner is found at SI.No.No.3. Despite the same, the petitioner has not been absorbed an employee of BBMP. 6. Aggrieved by this inaction, petitioner has gone on making representations. 5. On 12.03.2008, the BBMP vide Annexure-F forwarded the list of employees who had consented to be absorbed into BBMP to the State Government wherein the name of the petitioner is found at SI.No.No.3. Despite the same, the petitioner has not been absorbed an employee of BBMP. 6. Aggrieved by this inaction, petitioner has gone on making representations. The last of the representations made by the petitioner addressed to the State Government are dated 05.02.2013 and 20.02.2013 produced at Annexures-H J. As these representations have not been considered, petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations for absorbing him as an employee of the BBMP and for granting other consequential benefits including for grant of promotion as has been done in the case of similarly placed employees. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to Annexure-F - communication addressed by the Joint Commissioner, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone, Mysore Road, Bangalore, to the Director, BBMP dated 12.03.2008 whereby the list of the employees who have consented to be absorbed into BBMP, in which the name of the petitioner is found at SI.No.3, has been forwarded. He also brings to the notice of the Court a notification issued by the State Government which is published in the Gazette on 16.01.2014 by which as many as 62 employees have been absorbed into the services of BBMP. The said document is placed on record with a memo b}r the counsel for the petitioner to support his contention that in respect of similarly placed employees, already decision has been taken by the State Government to extend the benefit of absorption. 8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2 submits that the representations submitted by the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law and a decision will be taken expeditiously. 9. 8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2 submits that the representations submitted by the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law and a decision will be taken expeditiously. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, particularly keeping in mind the provisions contained under Section 501-B(c) & 5Q1-C(e) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 which deal with the effect of inclusion of a part of a local area comprised in a smaller urban area in a larger urban area vis-a-vis the employees working in the smaller urban area and the benefit conferred on them regarding absorption and other allied benefits and also keeping in mind the various representations submitted by the petitioner which have remained unconsidered so far, I find that it is a fit case where a writ of mandamus has to be issued to respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner and take necessary action keeping in mind the treatment meted out to similarly placed employees and also in the light of the relevant provisions contained in the Act including the provisions of Section 501-B(c) & 501- C(e). Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in port. Petitioner is reserved liberty to file a fresh representation within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order addressed to each of the respondents. The 3rd respondent shall consider the same and submit necessary proposal afresh to the 2nd respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the representation. Thereafter, * respondents 1 & 2 shall consider the representation and the proposals, if any, sent within a further period of two months thereafter. Until the representation is considered, the services of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. BSPJ; 13.03.2014 ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is factual error in the 2nd line of Paragraph 4 of the order dated 21.02.2014. Reference to 'Guaibande' has to be corrected as 'Bomtnanahalli CMC'. Similarly, in the last paragraph, where direction is given to the respondents to consider the representation and the proposals, reference to 'respondents 2 and 3' has to read as 'respondents 1 and 2'. Direction therefore has to be to respondents 1 and 2 who shall consider the representation and the proposals. Similarly, in the last paragraph, where direction is given to the respondents to consider the representation and the proposals, reference to 'respondents 2 and 3' has to read as 'respondents 1 and 2'. Direction therefore has to be to respondents 1 and 2 who shall consider the representation and the proposals. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to effect corrections and issue a corrected copy of the order to the petitioner at his costs.