High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S Nagaraju S/O Siddalingappa vs State Of Karnataka on 21 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri S Nagaraju S/O Siddalingappa vs State Of Karnataka on 21 October, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
 '~  _   'V

V'  _.1'I;;njan agndu' «. _ j..

 3.  Swamy, 46 years
.«   V»CaLa':~.!1:ry Mahila Vidya Peeiha
" , Biafi; Maiavalli Taltdc
'  Mandya District

V V    Sn'. C. Vasu, 46 years

m THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  --  
DATED THIS THE 21" DAY      & L
BE?/0%;   '    X  L  TT X
THE HON'BLE MR. JUs'r1CEfFjgé;NA1$¢I) %31'RARB¥n:DY%
WRIT PETI'FIONi'NgM_;?093.  (;'}«-RIBS)" 

BETWEEN :

1. Sri.S.Nagarfi.§'u;"4;53I'y*3fifs g   
S/9  "      »
0°°l|Pfi'i0!i: .3fi3£1TF1°1*3f  ._  
Directemre .ci'~Ma$f¢:AEdu::afion ' "

6%' Cross,  _ '

Bangali>_r§+3_ '

2. Sri. M. shaggy, 
S19 Mailsgowdat. 

% Mahi:avidy¢~Pesema

Mymm"D§S'§ri¢: 

 S. D. A5510. B. Iavanappa,

S. D. A, Sic C. Chamaiah
01130:: of the District Adult

3



3 
the empluyees. There is no dilferenee between past seryiee of a

temporary employee appointed against a wnctiuned  _

full salary and ail aliowances perI'o:Iningmflf1e  " = 

hand and the past service of regular t5II:i'i3lt}},§'{5L'!~IQ 

computing the qualifying service»TVI'§j2*.V.pen:'eit2i1V:. eiég§s3i.l3c2iiion r L'

new sought to be made between    that
100 after absorption, iaekss  and there is
no nexus with    The 1111']-time
temporary     and a1} allowances
admissible' I6    A' with impugnity
espeixiallylvvin  ef this Court fmm lime to time

in the zfery pe4[iEi_eneLr.'s  'I'heref0re, it is prayed that an

 "wi'§!.__ ur eivigfelion 'be issued to the respondents to

and pre-reguiarisalityn service of the

_pe£itiC£rzers.«_.%is Lfiielifyiug service for the pulposes of seniority, pay

‘A V’ V ‘figexfiiean, piflmution, leave, pension and other terminal benefits.

C?

10

were treated on par with regular employees as they

authorised to be with the ofiieiai financial lmnsaciieiiei aiaieiied

the respective post. The ultimate benefi’l”‘[hattheA

secure was to be regulaxised fmm

couniing their previous services, wiiei§”~!be peiilieiieris not on
par with regular empieyeesijiefflli1e_*ie:s1iec:iiise”cadre {bi the purpuse
of senierily, pay pension, ie;_iye._a:s:i__i benefits is not

justified and the ‘<:.£-aim.

6. reépuridenis that the petitioners
have put in viiiicijjecanlinuous service as they were

apptainledv feir three months. The respondents

ii iwi)ulL’i’iei311ia*:i1ci’v~- that am the allegations that 49 persons who

mspendentmeuneii on consolidated salary

for Fiifieiionai Literacy Pmgmmme scheme sanctioned

” the Government are concerned. Their salary was paid

get-Qiie instructions issued by the Centre} Government and that

‘i’n~»i:riplementing the scheme the selection of the staff rural literacy

8

$5

12

8- The questitan that for ct1nside§*.§.t:it);r§V”t’.:’§VI’ _

Court had attained finality. The satne

way of an appeal and the mspondents the *’

by regularising the services of fmm
29.05.1997 and aim they are
entitled. It is deniatwen to count their
pre~regularisatj¢1ti.:v seniority, pension,
pay are before this

Court.

.. X Intttéfaee order of this Court having been

was jusfificaiiun in denying the claim of the

petitit$;1ers’vii’i~;s1)imf’va”s vomiting pre-abs;orpt.it3n services, which for

V Vt ail on par with the regular service emptuyment. The

u u ” tteattiteazttnxivtto the contrary cannot be accepted at this point uftime,

It _ urder of this Cuurt passed, as stated above, has attained

. V _ ‘4 The contention to justify the case uf 49 other persons

whose pre-absorption of services have been taken into

S

13

consideration. Even theugh the petitioners stood _;(>1a«l.fa_~

footing as contended by the Counsel for the ” 2

urged in the petition is the second

that the petitioners are sought to “given ti1’l’)iltI2~tryl’t;:”eetf13’sI1t when 2 L’

those 49 persons who –Cee1;eil an a

eensolidated salary for the ‘Rem! léiteraey programme,

even though by the Central
Gvvfiffifnttttta It is the service
rendered that. wuttlti for the purpuse uf granting the

relief elaimeiieggtdv this Court having held that the

..~ __the’vpetiltli{)iaers_.l3e regularised and treated as regularised

that the benefit especially relating ie their

penlsityltill be conferred on the petitioners with-«nut

ll’-,.._t*e.servati0n,_l’1- Theretbre, the petition deserves to be allowed.

the petition is allowed. The respondents en: directed

.Io_e_t_§unt and eunsider the pre-absorption services of the petitioners

es qualifying services fer the purpose of pensien and other

terminal benefits, The respemients shall give et1’eet to this Order

8