High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt M Munirathnamma vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 15 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt M Munirathnamma vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 15 November, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 153* day of November 2010
:BEFORE: ,_
HONBLE MRJUSTICE : v.JAGANNATiL:iN,,'j'<j«v:A,

WRIT PETITION Nos.14273 -- 76 / 2ooi<,é'O(s1i   

BETWEEN :

1. Smt.M.MunirathnamIna, _ _
Aged 55 years, W/0 Srifiiddaiah, V V A
Second Division Assist'an"t,. Gir1s----Hom_€: b
[Svvagatha Kendra}, Nea_r°K_idwai Hospital;
Hosur Road, Ba_r1ga1or°e--5€»Oj Q2-9.  

2. Smt.H.N.Naga1ai;shtni,f'_'O  V  "
Aged 55 years, :W/ o  :"i_ 'Shankamiiarayana,
House%_'Mo:;ther, 'St1*?ee" semi Niketana,

sJ1Road}Benaqge._,«,v

3. .Smt..V';;K.M*an_iu}_a,-._ 
{Aged 49» yea1fs,--.W~,/_ o Sr: Mano} Alrani,
'Office of the  Director.
W'ornen  "Development Department,
T.AO.'P,.Cv., ist 1«+ioo:,e Opp: Anara Bank,

' " B,B.Ro»ad,' District Office, Chickballapura.

V  , :*i'§/,'{s.,VV'I{;«S.Nagai'athna,

'  _ "Aged éigyears, D/o Late Siddanna,
. "'Sweeka1'a Kendra, Hosur Road,
iv\_Iears_Kidwai Hospitai, Bangaiore--56O O29.

. . Petitioners

[ By Sri Ranganath S.Jois, Advocate. ]

it   d';A N D 1

1. T he State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Women and Child Development,



[Q

l\/i.S.Building, Vidhana Veedhi,
Bangalore-- 560 001.

2. The Directorof Women and Child Development
Department, M.S.Building, Vidhana Veedhi, *~  D D ~ 
Bangalore--56O 001.    '

3. The Karnataka State Social Welfare  ft'   D'

No.55, 4"' Floor, KSCB Building, _
Risaldar Street, Seshadriporarn,' . 
Banga1ore«560 020. "  ~ 

, ;  Respondents' " ,

[ By Sri Jagadeesh Mundva'i'gi,   Rel  R--2.
Sri R.Nage'ndra,,Advocate,for R-3: )-

Writ Petitions-~-- filed   direct the
respondents"    as having been
absorbedilin   and to extend them all
the gse"rvic§j:i,bé}ieat'si,Ag'eava:1a1sie° to similar employees
discharging'  all consequential benefits,

etc.

 ETl'i3§§ peti'tio1_1;.,cvomir1g on for preliminary hearing in

f  grouptihisgg day, the court made the following :

ORDER

if The petitioners, who were working earlier as

-..VV’Ba’l’asevikas in Border Area Project {BAP} of Government

of India, were directed to be absorbed in Women & Child

Development Department of the State Government and

Er

pursuant to the direction given by the Government of
India, the State Government accepted the said direction

of the Government of india and contini.:.e_ci4:’i.the

petitioners in the posts of Karnataka

Devepment and issued the or_der__as _-per”

dated 13.2.2008.

2. The main grievance ‘Voffthe petitioriersi is that,

though they have towork the Women
81 Child Dev_e1op3:r1ent_ :1. of the State
(}0vernrne1ia.t:, on regular
basisgand has also been done
taking by the petitioners from
1.4.2O(A)’Er date of their posting as per the

a_fo:reVrrientior1’€’€’-I___QQ%Jernment Order dated 13.2.2008.

‘;Therefore«,._'”‘a.__g writ of mandamus is sought to the

grant the aforesaid relief of absorption as

we11..as«:_fi§ration of pay.

“1

G The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to

the aforesaid Government Order at AnneXure–F and also

to the direction given by this court earlier while

if

.2”.-

disposing of Writ Petition No. 16464 / 2006 on 28.2.2007
and submitted that, despite the direction given in the

said Writ petition, and the petitioners also havinggiven

various representations, nothing has .;a_s« _

regards the status or the paymhof V»

concerned. Therefore, the relief is”sought-.byflsuzitable

direction to the respondents_.”‘–~

4. The learned Go:vernI_hle’nt’uéidvocate lvfvoruthe State
submitted that the icasex be considered
in accordance law; the conditions
imposed in “In soother words, it is the
subInissi.on ppleagriied -‘Government Advocate that

the services reridered the petitioners in the erstwhile

shall be’—.c:o_united for the purpose of their pay

‘ v.st:bje»ct”.to..:V’the terms and conditions mentioned in the

. ‘G.o’iernrlient:=hC.rder dated 13.2.2008.

z Having thus heard both sides and taking note of

is fact that the petitioners have been allowed to

-“continue their services in the Women & Child

Development Department pursuant to the Government

if

of India directions and the State Government also
having now issued the order as per Annexure~–F stating

that the services rendered by the petitioners

shall also be counted for the purpose of

therefore, necessary to reiterate the ob_servationsV’rnade”

in the earlier- W.P.No. 164641/.20i):6*~ oiby.dn}ecti£ig_”the

respondents to consider thefiase of the botlif’

for absorption on regular basis”p_and,also fixation.
If any rules are to’ be this regard, the
respondents. also steps to frame the

rules.

6. therefore, stand disposed of
with thes,_aforesai’d’direction to the respondents and, in

vvieigv of the suit-rnisS.f;on made by the petitioners’ counsel

‘ ,,t’n.at have already been submitted, it is all the

“rriore V iiri,jpe’i’ative on the part of the respondents to

ensure; that necessary rules are framed at the earliest

the representations given by the petitioners are

considered in the light of the directions earlier given, in

accordance with law.

£7?’

6

R-3 shall also Consider disbursement of RF.
amount to the petitioners or credit the same to the State

Government as the case may be in View of ..th:e’««.rstand

taken by R~3 at pa1″ag’raph-5 of the

filed. The respondents shall pass’ ‘ T.

regard to the above Within of

receipt of a copy of this