' .[I3y':§ri shgkar,' 'Ad\}.]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 201s
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTZCE RAM T A'
WRIT PETITION No. 1 1357 /12009 if
AND
MIsc.W. No."'7S:G-4/2OI'OV_ 1
IN W.P.N0.V ieii_357¢'2oo9 V(S.--i{SRTC-I
BETWEEN :
Mumtaz Ahamed j 1: ____ H
S/o. Abdul. . 1
Age 54 yeairsl---V1".;__ H ~
Workingiési Traffiéfiiicontroller V
K.S.R."3f.C,,--NV g~2,:a.1énga1s.'vvDepot
Mandya-.Divis1on"V'f,_'~
Mandya
...PETI'l'IONER
(common)
1. Tirle Controller
K.S..R,VT.C., Mandya Division
_[Mandya
.' -*Ftu1"e Divisional Controller
; K.S.R.T.C., Tumkur Kolar Division
Tumkur
RESPONDENTS
(common)
M
[By Smt. H. R. Renuka and
Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., Advs.)
This W.}?. is filed under Articles 226
the Constitution of India praying to
impugned endorsement dt. 4/2/2008, * 2
passed by the R2 and etc.
This Misc.W. appIica:ti0r1 isisieap
CPC to dispose the Writ Peti’tion in temissr the order
passed by this Hor1’~b_le Courtjé irr.._pW.P.’Nos’;’ 24205..
24208 / 1990, since the’t:o..att’erf’:is covered by decision.
This W.~P.”3ai1d on for orders
this day, the itlae ‘flolioxvingz
oV§pfoRDER
_Thou’g.h is listed for orders, with the
‘ _Acol-.isent.tAViofthe AA1V’€§3J*i”}’€d Counsel for the parties, is finally
:.disposed of by this order.
2;—V:A.Petitioner’s name was included in the select list
it Badli’ Conductors in the respondent–Corporation on
— 1982 and removed from the list on 1/ 7/ 1983. In
light of the reported opinion of the Apex Court in
Govindaraju’s case, respondent–Corporation issued a
jet
cir5cu1ar dt. 1/ 10/ 1986, Annex.E, to reinstate the
petitioner amongst others, whence by endorsement dt.
12/7/2007, the petitioners name was restored’-fivith
effect from 18/6/ 1983 which when called
was quashed by order dt. 2/11 in if
W.P.11822/O7 and the proceedings
consideration in the light “‘paragA’rap1isu»ofj then’
circular, Annex.E. ThereafteI1riards..p’in cotnpliance with
the order, the responded: ieededipceerderdt 4/2/2008,
AnneX.A, setting v..out;:”the Czlauses 1 82: 2 of
Annex;Et;”i’circiu1arf;§ “were.”-conn”s”id’ered and the petitioner
was extended sedL:edtyp i’cr:e1n 18/6/1983 while denying
the petitionerV_Vba.ckWage”s,V extended continuity of service
‘3″~..fo1~~.’:tiie2,.’*-purposeHofterminal benefits only. Hence this
the following reliefs:
A a Writ or order in the nature of writ
‘~ of certiorari quashing the impugned
endorsement Vide No. KST/TMK/EST/
EST/E-3/5403/O7-08 dated 4/2/2008
vide Annex.A, passed by the 2nd
respondent;
‘ bl issue a writ or order in the nature of Writ
of mandamus directing the respondent–
Corporation to treat the petitioner as had”-.__>
been placed on probation. E _ _4
w.e.f.18/6/1983 and fix the 1333’/_’.-§V_:’SH'(‘3″.Ei’d_’i”§’,.:’p:’i:
and seniority from 18/ 6/ 1983 and ._ it
the difference of arnoun’tdirorn,.Vthe W
reinstatement ie., it :1 1987
onwards under 9 the d 7
circumstances of the and” .. .1′
c] Pass such othere’ordei*V:as’V’to eciosts as this
I-Ion’b1e. court”‘dee’mVs* ._fit_ tinder the facts
andcii§e1,irn.s:’tariices of ‘the-vcase in the
intei*iest_’of’;’usti’ce and equity.
for petitioner contends that
‘-v.,c1at3:segA–.t1 offlthecircular, Ar1nex.E, are not complied
he to the learned Counsel, the petitioner
ought placed on probation with effect from
~18/6/19’83 with appropriate pay scales and seniority as
date of reinstatement and to pay the differences
Wages from 11.3.87 the date of reinstatement up to
it
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the
respondent~Corporation points out to the V-order,
Annex.A, impugned, to contend that
cannot have any grievance over the fixa’ti.onf_iof this
seniority with effect from
entitlement to backwages for-A lithe
18 / 6 / 1983 onwards or contiriuity of service since
extended only for punpose ci_f”benefits.”V
5. leai:ned’;@3ounsel for the
parties and p’i”eadin.gs, what essentially
emerges is that,–tV..the ‘cir’c1..1__l-.).r-‘, Annex.E, provides for re-
engagingthe servi’c’e,s»–ol”‘.such of those conductors borne
on selectof the Badlis and removed during the
1Q8~3.’fiFh€ relevant terms are as follows:
Employees whose names
have been removed from the Select List
a Zwithout conducting a disciplinary inquiry
and whose cases are covered by the
decision of the Supreme Court in S.
GOVINDARAJLVS case, shall be
reinstated into service forthwith and their
M
seniority will be counted in the respective
Divisions where they are allotted to work.
2. If any junior person/s has/have
appointed to the substantive
probationer, then the Peti’tione_r-Vl’ it
Employee, who has bee-nrremoved
should be appointed.’ probation”i’t.\.._j’°V_A
against a substantive vacancy.”
6. Thus the rein-statement._o,f”the petitioner into
service necessarily reguiredvV._fi:§irigvVofjyseniority in the
division where lltielgwgas a.llotted._Workw”and if any of his
juniors were to substantive posts, as
probationersi, V in tliatifevent, petitioner ought to be
appointed onlnprobation against a substantive vacancy.
petitioner’s seniority is construed from
‘A1-‘ggdlnot seriously disputed and therefore
“seniority as on 18/ 6/1983, cannot be found
V’ V ‘ ff fault
7. The next requirement is, to ascertain whether
the petitioner is appointed on probation against a
M
substantive vacancy, if any of his junior is appointed to
such a post as a probationer. This aspect of the
though not forthcoming from the order,
has the learned Counsel for _respondentlffiflorporationitit
able to establish that c1ause~2 the
is complied with, there is’no’*n%eces’si.ty’ for.:an”enq’uiry,”‘
since there is no dispute 0ver”th_e– fixing of seniority from
18.6.1983.
8. pleadings, the
non–fixing of the pay
sca1e,:’-gthe of certain amount of
wages from 11/3/1987, the
dat.3%jA:lot’i’reinstaternent, up to date. This contention of
_pe,t_itione’r must stand negated since the petitioner
tolllestablish the pay scale which he was
entitledtoon reinstatement or to what amount is due to
hirri-..duVe to alleged wrong fixation of the pay scale. In
.’ the absence of relevant material constituting substantial
legal evidence of that fact in issue, it is not convenient
to adjudicate upon that controversy in exercise of
M
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India. More over, the petitioner has an
alternative and efficacious remedy by in.sti’tiit.i_ng
appropriate legal proceedings before the
courts’/forum under the Industrialp_I)isp1ites:Act;: t” V
to have his grievance redressed ;ancE_f_’he’nce, this
must necessarily fail. Petition-.is acc’o1fciin_giy rejectetl.
Rd/–