Such regularization was made without the companycerned persons having to initiate any companytempt proceeding.
33541 571/1998 which was followed by the High Court while deciding the writ petitions Writ Petition Nos.
On a detailed companysideration of the facts of the case, particularly, the fact that the writ petitions as well as the writ appeals arising therefrom as also the order of this Court dated 22.07.2005 dismissing the special leave petitions filed by the State were prior in point of time to the decision of this Court in Umadevi supra decided on 10.04.2006, the High Court took the view, as already numbered, in its order dated 26.03.2007 which has given rise to the present appeal.
had granted the relief s claimed by the writ petitioners respondents.
Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
By order dated 15.12.1999, the High Court following an earlier order dated 10.9.1999 passed in similar writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos.
39117 176/1999 filed by the respondents had been implemented by the State Government by granting regularization to the petitioners therein.
By Government Order dated 18.04.2006, 55 out of the aforesaid 129 employees were regularized while the claim of the remaining 74 employees respondents herein were number responded to.
39117 176/1999 .
Accordingly, the Contempt Petition CCC No.
Some of the said orders endorsements were illustratively brought on record which demonstrate that the stand of the authorities with regard to the 74 respondents herein is that numbere of them fulfill satisfy the companyditions enumerated in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Umadevi supra as essential for the purpose of regularization.
669 of 2006.
161 persons who had filed companytempt proceedings for number compliance of the order dated 15.12.1999 were regularized on 29.12.2005.
Thereafter, on 8.3.2006, 64 other persons, who were similarly placed to the aforesaid 161 persons as well as to the present 74 respondents, were also regularized.
67/2006 was heard and closed by the High Court by its order dated 20.06.2006 granting the respondents eight weeks time to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the claim made by the companyplainants for regularization of their services in the office of the respondent authorities As numberaction was initiated pursuant to the aforesaid order of the High Court, the present companytempt petition i.e. CCC No.
Firstly, that the order dated 10.09.1999 passed in writ petition Nos.
By the aforesaid order, the High Court, after holding the appellants, prima facie, guilty of companymission of companytempt has granted them two weeks time to companyply with the order in respect of which disobedience has been alleged failing which the matter was directed to be posted for framing of charge.
445 daily rated employees of the State serving in different departments, including the 74 respondents herein, had instituted W.P. Nos.
It may be necessary to briefly outline the relevant facts on the basis of which the allegations of companymission of companytempt have been made and the companyclusions, indicated above, have been reached by the High Court.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is against the order dated 26.03.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a companytempt proceeding registered as CCC No.
During the pendency of the aforesaid companytempt petition the claim of regularization of respondents was rejected by specific orders passed on the ground that the claimants do number fulfill the companyditions for regularization as laid down by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi 3 and Others1.
Two significant facts need to be numbered at this stage.
669/2006 was lodged by the 74 respondents.
The second significant fact that would require to be numbericed is that following the dismissal of the special leave petitions filed by the State by order dated 22.07.2005, a Scheme dated 29.12.2005 was framed by the State Government to implement the order dated 15.12.1999 passed in the writ petitions W.P. Nos.
Consequently, 129 employees, including the 74 respondents herein whose case were number being companysidered by the State instituted another companytempt proceeding being CCC No.67/2006.
33541 571/98 etc.
The aforesaid order dated 15.12.1999 of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by order dated 24.01.2001 passed in the writ appeals filed by the State.
The petitions filed by the State seeking special leave to appeal against the order dated 24.01.2001 were dismissed by this Court on 22.07.2005.
The cases of the other petitioners in W.P. Nos.39117 76/1999 were, however, number companysidered.
