High Court Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka Rep By The … vs A S Shetty on 30 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka Rep By The … vs A S Shetty on 30 October, 2009
Author: V.Gopalagowda And B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS 'I'HE 301" 'I DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.GOPAI'.AGOWDVA:T'    I-

AND

THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE ;'I3S.v;:I$IAGAR.zIj~}:1"N A 

W.P. N0s.27501/2005 C"/5w"*'Iy.P.No.2429II/2605,. 
W.P.No.7475[_2QmQ"§   

W.P. N0. 2750 1 / 2005

BETWEEN:

1

THE STATE ?;)F.'_KARNF.fI'AK--EiR.EP BY THE SECY
To    
PU_BLIC'~W'OI?§f{S DEPARTMENT

MS BUILDINGS '  

I3g\I\IcAL0II+:E:_»I ' I ' ' I  "

THE'-CHIEE"EN'€}'II\IEE"E 
COMMUN*ICATION AND BUILDINGS NORTH
_; D C c0IvII2QU:\ID,' DILARWAD

' THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
" = I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DIVISION
«. _ «D'HAEvII.AE~*0PP AIR STATION
 DHAI"?iWF§D

I  ASSISTNAT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
FIND SUB DIVISION

I» I '*~.,_N0 1, opp AER S'1'A'£'ION
 ..=DHARWAD

 PETITIONERS

{By Sri: D VIJAYA KUMAR, GOVT. ADV.)

'\I/



W.P.No.24291/2005

BETWEEN:

THE SECRETARY STA  OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF IRR GATION
M.S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE

THE ENGINEER-IN--CHIEF
WRDO, ANANDARAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE 560 009

THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION NORTH
BELGAUM

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER  . '  I "
GLBC CIRCLE, JAMKHANDI'=._ _ --
BAGALKOT DISTRICT  ._

T1;i'EI'E2<Et¥:U'ffi;E PfiNC%INEER"' 
HBO DIVIS1QNa."ATi~IAN..I__ --
EE:.GAUM .D1~sTR1<:.fr"~--. 

THE ASSISTANTGGEXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HBC SUBDNISION No.3

. 'HIPPARGI, JAl'J£.Kl~iANDI TALUK
'  'EAGALKQT DISTRICT

. .. PETITION ERS

(By  ;)»v1;3AYA KUMAR, AGA)

 B K KARIBASANAVAR S / O SR1 BHIIVIAPPA

AGED 46 YEARS,

VVORKING AS LITERATE ASSISTANT

SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT

IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXEUCTIVE
ENGINEER, HBC SUB DIVISION NO.3. K.N.N.N
LIMITED,HIPARGI,-JAMKHANDI TQEAGALKOT

\\I/'



LflVIITED,H1PARGI,JAMKHAND1 TQ.
BAGALKOT

8 A B KUTOJI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O ANNAPPA
WORKING AS' NSKILLED LABOURER

IN THE OEEI OF THE ASSISTANT EXEUCTI\fE'   °' C

ENGINEER, HBC SUB DIVISION NO.3, K..N_.i\LN 

LIMITED,HIPARGI,JAMKHANDI»TQ_,BAGA1,EOT "  

9 S C GADDI

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS; _

S/O SHIVASHANKARA '   I I . _ 
WORKING AS UNSKILLED"LABOURER_  --  
IN THE OFFICE OE THE ASS_I:'3TA_NT EXEI.ICTIVE
ENGINEER, HBC SUB D15;/ISI'ON NO.._3. K.N.'N.;N
LIMITED,HIPARGI,JAMIG=LA;?§IDI TQ,BAGALKOT

   ':;.&};2RS.ESP0NDENTS

(By Sri: R  1CO[.INSELVVF(5R
SR1. P RAJ;ASHEI<AR--.EOR;'.-RI--91,

THISE"WPV1f,FILE'iii3 UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUT1GN=VIOE, 'I-ND.IA_ PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER _ DT;.17.3'.'::.Q'Q_5 BY THE KARNATAKA
ADM1NIST'RATEVE'TR!BUNAL{N APPLICATION NOS. 1700 TO
1708 OF 2005 vIDE.'ANN;A~.

  Q2006 ..... ..

 

 III THE, SECRETARY

'  STATE OF KARNATAKA

V ..5DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION

1V,E.S.BUILD1NG, BANGALORE

V'  THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
ORGANISATION

ANANDARAO CIRCLE

BANGALORE

V



3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
IN-RARNATAKA
BANGALORE

4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATEON PROJECT ZONE,
GULBARGA

5 THE EXECUTEVE ENGINEER    :
KARANJA PROJECT CONSTRUCTION; "
DIVISION NO.3, EH.ATAMERA,"a I D 
TALUK BALK1, EIDAR DISTRICT 

  ;'*DE'T1*IiIONERS

{By Sri: DNIJAYA KUIviARV,S_AO_Aj'""_  -1';

mm;     

MR MALLIKARJ_.UN"'  . _   I.

S/O  PATIL  ~
SSYEARS"  
JUNIORVVENQNV * _  -- .

R/O PLOT NO. 1,.  NIVAS
SHIVANAGAR-(NORTH). _  '
EIDAR585 401- I  ' 

A'   ..... .. «  RESPONDENT

‘E%y’ S;::..NaSV44DESN-PANDE, ADV.)

A FILED UNDER ARTICLES 228 AND 227 OF

4 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
“THE ORDER DT. 18.8.2005 PASSED BY THE KAT IN
..jIfA”fE>PL1CATE0N NO5670 OF 2005 VIDE ANNE-3X.A.

Thtsc petitionscoming on for PRELIMENARY HEARING

E’ this day, V GOPALA GOWDA made the following:

\/

0 R D E R
The state has challenged the orders passed by the KAT
on various applications by which the tribunal following its

earlier decision in application No.91?-4 disposed of..___on

22.9.2004 granted the relief sought for by the applicaiitsu

the petitioner–state was directed to pay the *

herein the salary and other monetary.benefitslyirriiterrnslxof

they being regularized in their res:pecjt_’iveV posts theifiii/_A

department. The earlier 01’der.s ofrvthe were

questioned by the state in Writ l5etition and
connected writ petitions the’ Division of this court by

its order dated 17..9.2oo9…s..pi5le1d. “Q:-._d;§’r’i,,o’f the tribunal

and direlcteVd”.i.hfat were entitled to time
bound advpancenientfincI=erneni.. in terms of the Kamataka

Civil Services {‘l’ime ‘i3oU._n(1.;fladvancement Rules, l983. In

~”vy”iew._of<.the' O1V'_ClCI'SA"C')§"vU..'3.i.':' court passed in the aforesaid writ

if-petiti"u–ns;._it*isstibmitted at the bar that these writ petitions

also Would' have? to be dismissed and hence, similar orders

'may be passed in these writ petitions.

if I l"We have perused the orders passed by this court dated

p in Writ Petition No. 12136/06, in which the similar

fluyearlier order of the KAT is challenged. the said order was

considered with reference to the aforesaid rules since the

liv"

respondents employees were working as Group ‘D’ employees
in their respective offices and their services were regularized

pursuant to the Government Order dated l6.8.199V¢§_}o.n

certain terms and conditions particularly conditions-.’.j1€):{a}5.

10{b} and i10(d) of the said order held .the”

conditions clearly stated that after reg4nij.ariezatio’n”of~.__th.e_

services of the employees, the Government Qrzlierivdid

state that on their regulaI’i’I'{.ation’t.l:riej,r _won’ld._ beK§entitled
to such benefits and tliere restrfiction, the
benefit of the said rules were’ respondents in
those writ the present
respondents V V employees therefore
they wotildv benefits under the
aforesaidlriileslasyl court. Accordingly, the writ

petitions a1’e””..disrnissed as” being devoid of merit and the

“V..respvojnden:t/employees«* are entitled for time–bound

V’-,adiv3;11cpeinent’-. increment in terms of the said rules are

extended to’V’the.a1respondents.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/r
JUDGE

S32