Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1328 (KAR)

Varadaraj v. Secretary

2022-10-10

S.G.PANDIT

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner regularized as Tracer is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of endorsement bearing No.xxx:37:xxxx:2010 dtd. 14/10/2011 vide Annexure-T wherein the second respondent is intimated by the first respondent that the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization as Draftsman since the petitioner is initially appointed as Tracer on daily wage basis. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.Babu Rao for petitioner, learned AGA Sri.Ramesh Jois M.V. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Babu Rao would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis on 1/10/1982 and he was discharging duties of Draftsman. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to Annexure-A, certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Kabini Nala Division, Kollegal, certifying that the petitioner possesses qualification prescribed for the post of Draftsman and he is performing the duties of Draftsman. The petitioner was regularized under Annexure-C/Office Order dtd. 17/12/1993 in Group-C post in the pay scale of Rs.960.00 1760. Subsequently, the petitioner was regularized in the pay scale of 1040-1900 by correcting regularization order dtd. 17/12/1993. It is submitted that, immediately thereafter, the petitioner is said to have submitted a representation to regularize his services in the post of Draftsman which carries the pay scale of Rs.1190.002200. Learned counsel would submit that similar benefit was extended to one Sri.Naganna, who was discharging the functions of Draftsman and was regularized in the post of Draftsman in the pay scale of 1190-2200. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner was recommended for regularization in the post of Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs.1190.002200 by the Executive Engineer as well as Chief Engineer, Kabini Nala Division, Kollegal. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner possesses qualification of SSLC and ITI certificate to hold the post of Draftsman. Therefore, the learned counsel Sri.Babu Rao contends that the petitioner had performed the duties of Draftsman since the date of his appointment on daily wage basis, and hence, he would be entitled for regularization in the post of Draftsman, as the similar benefit was extended to one Sri.Naganna. Therefore, he submits that the impugned letter dtd. 14/10/2011 (Annexure-T) is contrary to the material on record and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submits that the impugned letter dtd. 14/10/2011 (Annexure-T) is contrary to the material on record and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition and to direct the respondents to regularize his services in the post of Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs.1190.002200. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis as Tracer in the pay scale attached to the post of Tracer i.e., Rs.1040.00 1760. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly regularized in the post of Tracer, which carries the pay scale of Rs.1040.00 1760. Further, learned AGA would invite attention of this Court to Annexure-R5 dtd. 8/5/1992 and pointed out that at the relevant point of time, when the petitioner's case for absorption or regularization was considered, no post of Draftsman was available and the post of Tracer with SSLC and ITI qualification was available with the pay scale of Rs.1040.001900. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner was rightly absorbed/regularized in the post of Tracer with pay scale of Rs.1040.001900. Thus, he justifies the action of the respondents. Further, it is submitted that since the petitioner is regularized in the post in which he was initially appointed on daily wages, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief in the present writ petition. Thus, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as Tracer on daily wage basis and was paid salary of minimum of pay scale i.e., Rs.1040.001900. The petitioner was regularized under Office Order dtd. 17/12/1993 (Annexure-C) to Group "C" w.e.f. 1/10/1992 in the pay scale of Rs.960.001760 and subsequently pay scale was corrected as Rs.1040.001900. Admittedly, the petitioner was possessing qualification of SSLC and ITI certificate. Annexure-R5/ Government Order would show that the post of Tracer with qualification of SSLC/ITI/drawing exam with pay scale of Rs.1040.001190. A person who is initially appointed in a post would be entitled for regularization in the same post to which he was initially appointed. A person who was appointed to the lower post would not be entitled for regularization in a higher post. A person who is initially appointed in a post would be entitled for regularization in the same post to which he was initially appointed. A person who was appointed to the lower post would not be entitled for regularization in a higher post. The ground of discrimination or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not be available to the petitioner since Sri.Naganna with whom petitioner compares his case is not regularized in the post of Draftsman. There is no document or material to establish that Sri.Naganna was also appointed on daily wages as Tracer and he was also performing the duties of Draftsman. Moreover, as could be seen from Annexure-R5/Government Order dtd. 8/5/1992 there was no post of Draftsman as claimed by the petitioner. No fault could be found with the impugned communication. Moreover a daily wager would be entitled for regularization to a post in which he was initially appointed and not in a higher post. 6. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the petition stands rejected.