AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The Petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of the services of her husband on par with 31 candidates'' regularized on 21.07.2007.
2 Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 though served is unrepresented.
Since the matter lies in a narrow compass, so as to direct the first Respondent for further action, the matter is heard and disposed of in the absence of the fourth Respondent.
The Petitioner is the wife of one late Sannappa, who is said to have joined the services of the fourth Respondent with effect from 25.12.1988 as a labour on daily wage basis. The said Sannappa died on 01.04.2007. Prior to his death, the husband of the Petitioner Sannappa and several others, who worked on daily wages as like that of Sannappa were being considered for regularization under a scheme. Accordingly, the list of persons who were entitled to regularization in all numbering 33 was prepared to be sent by the fourth Respondent for the purpose of regularization. Subsequently, only 31 names were forwarded and the same was considered and the regularization was effected. Since by such time, the husband of the Petitioner had expired, the case of the husband of the Petitioner was not forwarded for consideration. Though as on the date of actual regularization the husband of the Petitioner had expired, the manner of regularization of other 31 persons would indicate that the regularization was with effect from an earlier date i.e., after the period of completion of initial 10 years on daily wage basis. In the case of the husband of the Petitioner, it is not in dispute that he had worked from the year 1988 and if he was alive at the time of regularization and in normal procedure as adapted in the case of others, he would have been entitled to regularization with effect from 1998. The important aspect of the matter that the regularization was with effect from a retrospective date becomes relevant for consideration of the case of the Petitioner in the instant case as it would entail several consequential benefits.
That being the position, the third Respondent/Deputy Commissioner in fact has taken note of this aspect of the matter and by his communication dated 21.04.2008 addressed to the second Respondent herein has highlighted this aspect of the matter. A perusal of the said communication would indicate that the husband of the Petitioner in fact was entitled for regularization and consideration in that regard had not been made due to the error committed by the fourth Respondent while forwarding the names. It is in that context, the third Respondent/ Deputy Commissioner has requested the second Respondent for consideration of the case of the husband of the Petitioner. Though the said communication has been addressed on 21.04.2008 (Annexure-J), no action has been taken at: the hands of the second Respondent. The Petitioner therefore made one more representation dated 08.07.2009. But, the same has not yielded any result except for the endorsement issued to the Petitioner informing that no action could be taken till the second Respondent takes a decision on this aspect of the matter.
Hence, keeping these aspects in view and considering the fact that the recommendation had been made by the third Respondent as far back as on 21.04.2008, a direction is issued to the second Respondent to consider and dispose of the recommendation made by the third Respondent as at Annexure-J as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law, but not; later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner immediately thereafter.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.