Sri H. Lokesh and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 3614/2008 and connected matters dated 24.2.2010 is called in question in these Writ Petitions. The case of the petitioners is that they are all daily wage employees appointed during 1986-1990; their services stated to have been continued from the date of appointment till the date of filing of these Writ Petitions; till this day, the petitioners have been making representations to regularize their services in accordance with the directions issued by the apex court from time to time including the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, ; the authorities of the Forest Department have directed the concerned Deputy Conservator of Forests to look into the case of each of the daily rated employees for regularisation and to proceed in accordance with law as declared by the apex court from time to time; pursuant to such directions, the Deputy Conservator of Forests has passed the order dated 20.3.2008 regularising the services of the petitioners; however, subsequently, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bangalore and Conservator of Forests, Shimoga Circle, Shimoga refused to confirm the said order by issuing letters dated 26.4.2008 and 13.05.2008 respectively; the Conservator of Forests as well as the Chief Conservator of Forests instructed the Deputy Conservator of Forests to keep the order of regularization in abeyance and ultimately, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Shimoga instructed the Deputy Conservator of Forests to cancel the order of regularization dated 20.3.2008 and therefore, the order dated 20.3.2008 came to be cancelled on 28/29.7.2008. The said order of cancellation was questioned by the petitioners before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 3614/2008 and connected matters, which came to be disposed off on 24.2.2010, whereby the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal quashed the order of cancellation by concluding thus:

The impugned order is quashed. However, it is directed that the regularisation of the Applicants under the "speaking order" dated 20.3.2008 be kept in abeyance till the matter is settled afresh as follows:

The 2nd respondent is directed to issue notice to the Applicants with regard to the proposal to cancel the order of regularisation dated 20.3.2008 and give them reasonable opportunity to put forth their contentions and evidence and thereafter take a considered decision as per law and in particular the UMADEVI decision of the Apex Court, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Sri K. Govindaraju, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Conservator of Forests was justified in passing the order dated 20.3.2008 in as much as the petitioners have been working as daily rated employees since 20 years and that they satisfy the requirements enumerated in the judgment of the apex court in the case of UMADEVI.

The learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the petitions and contends that no harm is caused by the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in as much as the Tribunal has merely directed the State Government to consider the case of each of the petitioners on merits. We have meticulously perused the order dated 20.3.2008, by which the services of the petitioners are regularized. Though the Deputy Conservator of Forests refers to various observations made by the apex court, has not considered the case of each of the petitioners independently. The case of each of the petitioners relating to regularisation depends upon the fact as to whether the conditions enumerated by the apex court in its judgment in the case of UMADEVI are fulfilled or not? Therefore, the Deputy Conservator of Forests ought to have considered the case of each of the petitioners before passing the order of regularization. In that context, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, is justified in directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to take decision in the matter as per law keeping in mind the decision of the apex court rendered in UMADEVI''S case.

Since no harm is caused by the impugned order, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same. On the other hand, if each of the petitioners'' case is considered in the light of the judgment cited supra, the question as to whether the service of each of the petitioner needs regularisation or not, can be considered appropriately.

Accordingly, no interference is called for. Petitions fail and are dismissed. However, the second respondent is directed to comply with the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal as early as possible within the outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.