...3_ 1982 he was deputecl to the National Dairy Research Institute (for short, 'NDRI') Bangalore, for a Diploma course in Dairing and on completion of the said eoursef"he,V"«.afas:_.v posted at Bangalore Daiiy. In the year 1965_e-nl' of Masters Degree in Dairing atll_N--DRI, [f4Iaiyan_a], .he was posted at Mysore Dairy as :_El::tensio1il:Qi'ficer w.e.f. ll/3/1968. Later, he Chemist and posted at Bangalore,Dairy,..int.eral.ia that he would forfeit for, it "service under the Government. tgfhemist was also made by i\/IPSCE posted to Bangalore Dairy on deputationhasis duty on 4/5/1972. The petitiorier clairned to be treated as a Government servant on .d'epuVt"atioh'* basis whichllwas however not accepted by the and it was stated that he should be treated ass-regular employee of the Bangalore Dairy w.e.f. 5/ i97\2..D' The Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation [tor short 'KDDCL') the organisation under whose '~-djurisdiction was Bangalore Dairy stated that the petitioner ~ gfcould not be treated as having been on deputation to Bangalore Dairy and shouid treated as a regular empioyee of the Bangalore Dairy w.e.f. 4.5.1972 and the KDDCL issued order dated 24/11/1977 regularising the service of the 5 E» /'2 __ ii petitioner as an employee of the Bangalore Dairy W--_§:.f. 4.5.1972. 3. However, according to the petitiolner-1l1--e_'Vwas_l"an employee of the Department of Veterinary Services and was depi:vted,to l€l.angalo1_;e and he was therefore, a Governmen't"'servant:.'that on attaining the age of superannuation; he 1990 and he made several usetftlement of his pensionary a. Government servant but the """ 'not': responded to his representations' he filed the application before the tribunal'Sgelgcingéédecllaration that he be treated as a Governrnent serva:'1tti_l_lpothe date of retirement and to grant l'1_all. _n10_netary b.er"ie__f its. 4;' .._"'«..ol€3efore}~ the Tribunal the application was conte--s_ted_.b3r:thel respondent --~ authorities by contending that
3l”‘~___lthough the: petitioner joined Government service in the year
Elle had applied for the post of Project Chemist in
“l,…h:}§angalore Dairy Project and was selected in the said
irecruitment retired from Bangalore Dairy and has received
all retirai benefits and after retirement, he cannot claim to be
a Government servanii; that NEPSC appointed the petitioner
/”-
M
A» D ._
directly to the Bangalore Dairy and the petitioner is governed
by the rules and regulations of the KDDCL, whichvyistthe
organisation which had regularised the service’s’*«of~
petitioner. It was also stated that Bangalore
autonomous body and the petitioner was._sel-eetevd’
post in KDDCL and was ;:elievet1._ll:_o:t’: duties
from the Government the services of
the petitioner was r_egulariee.:C’1 A same was
accepted by that a belated
claim cannot be tor«a”dleela’rationlVlthat the petitioner be
treated Accordingly, the State
Government the application.
5. On the basis otT”the rival pleadings, the Tribunal
= tollowiAngvpo.i1its for consideration:–
‘ -riff for consideration are: {i}
‘t.lieV..Applicant can be regarded as
‘ernployee of the Government of
Korniataka; (it) whether the Applicant
llfshotlld. be treated as on deputation to
‘KDDC and {iii} whether the Applicant is
entitled to any benefit of pension and other
retiral benefits admissible under the KCS
Rules.” , pf
__6_
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on
record held that there was no merit in the application
the petitioner could not be treated as a Govt. s¢;4<;a§1:_~
accordingly, dismissed the application. Being."
the said order, this writ petition has bAeen..pl'{:ferreld. ll l
7. We have heard tt:e””‘ cotinsel tor the
petitioner and the iearnedl No.1 and 2,
and learned counsel 4.
8. It £511.. the petitioner that
he was alsilial’G:otrernrnent”stervant but he was sent
on deputation to the:’.’l§arii«atall{a..lCooperative Milk Producers’
Federation and retired7–frorn the said organisation but he
alllGo1.r–e1’nment servant; that the Govt. was
ll’–nia;naging._:the”~l§angalore Dairy through the Department of
Animal’ and Veterinary Services. That the
‘selection the petitioner was made through the MPSC and
V’ inAAthe–._notification issued, it was stated tht the post are
“‘l«.–pelnsionab1e under the Governrnent; that the petitioner did
agree to any of the adverse conditions sought to be
imposed on him that when he was relieved from Mysore
Dairy and he joined Bangalore Dairy, it was on deputation
basis: that there was no option given to the petitioner to be
_/
10. Having heard the counsel on both sides.,i..the.’:ori1;y it ”
point that arises for our consideration is as to__\X}hetherviti§e’
order of the Tribunal calis ‘for any int.erfere:nee -:ii1.lV:t’iiiisgwrit
petition.
1 1. From the material the
petitioner joined service. . as la””Veterinary
Stoekman under the Govt!vand_’..subsequently
pursuant to l\¥oj;ifieat’io1q by MPSC,
the Project Chemist at
Bangaiorellfiairyjafincliby n’e~ti:fieaiio”n”‘diated 11/8/197] issued
by MPS(jxKhe iwasj post of Project Chemist.
Thereafter, Director of Bangalore Dairy
1ette1f,j_to t.he*petitioner offering an appointment as a
WPrcje’ct. jC’he1r1:vist.”s-iibject to certain terms and conditions. In
the said letter; was stated that the petitioner would be on
fprobatio..nV1’ for a period of one year and other conditions of
it 2..servic’e._as”applicable to the employees of the Bangalore Dairy
‘–«l«’7we”tiidlappiy to him and the petitioriefs concurrence to these
Kljcoriditions were sought. Thereafter, by order dated
19/4/1972 issued by the Director of Bangalore Diary, the
petitioner was appointed as Project Ch€l:§i1iS[ in the
§/”
frepartrrient of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services at
h Mysore, on 29/4/ 1972. Thereafter, the petitioner sought his
” posting at Bangalore Dairy as Project Chemist. Thereafter,
3 __
sanctioned post on a pay scale of Rs.300–“/’00 pm. One of
the conditions stipulated in the said order was as follows:–
“The Bangalore Dairy will not be responsible
any way for settlement of any claims or liabiliiies_c’ . it
arising out Of the service Of Shri Md Ghouse? iv” ‘A
to his joining duty with the Bangalore
response of his earlier sero_ice:_u2liptlI the.
Husbandry and
including arrears of other
arrears on ailfinancial’ ‘lilabvilititesyp aviiiibe liable to
be settlefgiwbe thel Lisbandry Dep it.
The absolutely no
respons.ibil5i.ty.;’:fiandwnol ainvol.oement with the
ma,nne_r °i.”re_l ‘such settlement. The
appointee will to give an undertaking
in _vwriting Vag.re’eing_ that all claims on account of
&_ ‘hisv_lApast ‘seruice__.will be liable to be settled
between him and the Deptt. Of Animal
it H’u.sVi:.anaryv Vety. Services.”
.c 12$ ” Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved by the
by a letter dated l8/5/ 1972 the petitioner made a
representation to the Secretary, Government of Mysore
Agriculture and Forest Department that he had accepted the
/.
elfiv
post of Project Chemist on deputation basis. It appears that
the Government did not respond to the said represenrtat.i;on,_
Thereafter, the petitioner was regularised from
and till his retirement on 31 / 7/ 1990, there was it
by the petitioner regarding his COl;J,.EiI1L:1a_I1C€’-,,t).l’
terms of order of regularisatigonadated 24/ 1
4/5/1972. It is only after his retiienient gaetitioner
started making 1’epreseritaticins’§_ treated’ as a
Government servant. and B pensionary
benefits under the B r;fo\risi:«jns
13. it is seen that the
Under and Forest Dept. by
letter dated 1 /’ to the Director, Bangalore
Diary stated 4″‘th_a1*t.h–e hp-.et’itioner had been selected by the
V’iiPs(j:c..{‘ibr,mer*l.y MPBC’]'”for the post of Project Chemist and he
l’1a§afepo:i+r«§d in the Bangalore Dairy on é~/ 5/ 1972
and ,_hence?'”r:t3i_ie: question of treating him as being on
_ “c1_eputat1~on to the Bangalore dairy does not arise and that he
“sho_nld*«_.be treated as regular candidate with the Bangalore
w.e.f. -4/5/1972 and that his past service up to
_u’4′.x4»/5/1972 Should be governed by Government Order
No.C1.25.FS¥’.69 dated 26/3/1970 and his service in the
Bangalore Dairy from 4/5/1972 should be 1″egi3larised as per
‘l 3 _
mm
the terms of the Government Order l\lo.AF.74.VDD.71 dated
13/4/1971. Accordingly, by order dated 24/11/1977 the
KDDCL regularised his service at Bangalore Dairy,_lt”_l’is_
relevant to observe that the order of regularisatiofilllhéé _
been challenged by the petitioner’.«.._V ‘I’he’1-‘el”ore, tine’ pctvitiorllervl
was an employee of KDDCL the said
employment on certain though not
expressly and in the year
1972 and iéjcjfli onjlattaining the age
of superanni,i€atioi1linv any demur.
that the appointment of the
petitionerllasplla in Bangalore Dairy was a
fresh 4ap’pointn1e»nt”al11d it was not a deputation post as
notification dated 7/5/E971 issued by the
applied and was selected and recruited
l as Pmject ‘Chemist. Infact, Notification dated 11 /8/ 1971
ll.”-__li”ssxued byatlhe MPSC also clearly states that the petitioner is
:se1eet.end for the post of Project Chemist pursuant to
notification dated 7/ 5/ 1971 inviting applications for the said
Lllpost. Also, the offer of appointment as Project Chemist by
Bangalore Dairy dated 29/8/1971 and the order of
appointment dated 19/4/1.972 clearly prescribes that the
petitioner had to forfeit. claim of past service in the
ex
__ _
department. Only because the relieving order 25/9/1972
stated that the petitioner was joining Bangalore
deputation basis. the contention of the
continued to be a Government servan_t””‘underp the
Department of Animal Husbar-‘dIy_y and’-Veteririaryy: Servicesd
cannot be accepted. On a if ifiof the
aforementioned dOCuI’E1€V1’1:”if.sv:”E1_1.O;l.;lg;j_hTitl1._’l9lD1’J§XL11’€ dated
21/ 2/ 1974 and Annexule. by which
the services of irjeéiil-afiised in Bangalore
Dairy would fioner had accepted a
fresh at Bangalore Dairy
and servant w.e.f. 4/5/1972.
Therefore. the” ‘liribuv’i1al”- justified in holding that the
. l.petitioner–.”icoul.d notlhellltreated as Govt. servant till the date
of retirerriegit; dO.r_r_jthe basis of the aforesaid discussion it is
Cl€’8.A1’»__’1VLhat. hetitioner was not sent on deputation as
ff”-‘..__VPr0ject “Chemist at Bangalore Dairy. The order of the
therefore. does not call for any interference on
–.D”me§”its.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
certain decisions in the case of K.Sa.njeeva Suvarna.
—-vs.~ The Accountant General (A 82. F), Karnataka and
others [W.P.No.26215/1997) disposed of On 2/8/1999, a
.r%y,¢
_.4»”
_lL§_
18. More over, the application filed before the
Tribunal is also liable to be dismissed on account of gross
delay and laches. Having accepted his position sincefithe
year 1972. the petitioner cannot contend that .
treated as a Governrnent servant. _H>Tl’1O1,1g’_~l’1.l”‘t’l””‘ié_” ,case”_of__
Nar Singh Pal –vs.– Union of India; arid
in (2000 SCC (L 82. S) has been “r’e’i’i.eci~i1;pon to contend
that there cannot be any .w.a:i_\fei’ i.’a§ainst exercise
of fundamental 14 and 16.
19. “”” H alréelof the View that there
is no has been violated much
less a funldarnental_.lriglktland’therefore, the said decision is
also not applicable. ”
gdff ‘lll’ie;’e is no merit in this Writ petition. The Writ
petiti’onA accordingly, dismissed.
Sdg/I.
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*mvs