Allowed

Channegowda v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2017WP/23150/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned seniority list due to the complete absence of appointment orders and regularization evidence from both parties. The court directed the parties to file claims and counterclaims and ordered the Commissioner to determine seniority in accordance with service regulations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned seniority list set aside; parties directed to file claims/counterclaims; respondent authority directed to pass orders in accordance with service regulations.

Channegowda Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.23150-23154/2013 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Channegowda, S/o late Channagowda, Aged about 58 years, Working as First Division Assistant, Karnataka Slum Development Board, R.C. Road, Hassan.

¶9

B. Indukumar, S/o B. Boregowda, Aged about 55 years, Working as First Division Assistant, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶10

S. Prasanna, S/o late Shankarappa, Aged about 57 years, Working as First Division Assistant, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶11

B. Saleem, S/o B. Basha Saheb,

¶12

¶13

	Aged about 53 years, Working as First Division Assistant, Karnataka Slum Development Board, Sub Division, Bellary.
5.	H. Hanumanthappa, S/o late Honnaiah, Aged about 53 years, Working as First Division Assistant, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street, Bangalore – 560 020. …Petitioners
	(By Sri G.K. Basavaraj Patel, Advocate for Sri Ranganath S. Jois, Advocate)
AN	D:
1.	The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020.
2.	Sri D. Basavarajaiah, Major, Working as Superintendent, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020.
3.	Sri B.S. Biliyali, Major, Working as Superintendent, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street,
	Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶14

¶15

4.	Sri V. Pundarika Murthy,
	Major, Working as Superintendent, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020.
5.	Sri V.H. Benki,
	Major, Working as Superintendent,
	Karnataka Slum Development Board,
	No.55, Risildar Street,
	Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020.
6.	Sri Yateeshkumar, Major, Working as First Division Assistant, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020.
7.	Smt. Manjulaposa, Major, Working as First Division Assistant, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020.
8.	H. Ratnamma, Major, Working as First Division Assistant, Karnataka Slum Development Board, No.55, Risildar Street,
	Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶16

¶17

The Secretary to Housing Department, Karnataka Government Secretariat, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondents

¶18

(By Sri Rajashekar Hegde, Advocate for Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, Advocate for R-2 to R-8, Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R-9, Sri N. Manohar, Advocate for R-1)

¶19

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the endorsement dated 4/6.5.2013 passed by the R-1 (Annexure-N) in so far as petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are concerned and order dated 29.5.2013 (Annexure-O) in so far as R-2 to R-4 are concerned and assign the seniority to the petitioners w.e.f. 3.11.2010 and ranking above the R-2 to R-8 in the seniority list of First Division Assistants dated 4/6.5.2013 (Annexure-M) with a further directions to R-1 to promote the petitioners w.e.f. 29.5.2013 as Superintendent and grant arrears of salary with all consequential benefits.

¶20

These writ petitions coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners’ grievance is that though the respondent

¶23

Nos.2 to 8 are junior to them in service, they are placed above the petitioners in the impugned seniority list.

¶24

Sri G.K. Basavaraj Patel, the learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioners submits that the petitioners were all appointed as the

¶26

¶27

F.D.A.s on daily wages between 1983 and 1986, whereas the private

¶28

respondents are appointed as S.D.A.s between 1983 and 1992.

¶29

Sri Rajashekar Hegde, the learned counsel for the

¶30

respondent Nos.2 to 8 submits that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to claim that they were appointed as F.D.A.s on daily wages. He submits that both the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 to 8 were appointed as Graduate Assistants on daily wages. He submits that the pay-scales of F.D.A. were extended to both the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 to 8 on principle of equal pay for equal work. He submits that the petitioners’ regularization was as against the supernumerary posts and that the services of the respondent Nos.2 to 8 were regularized as against the substantive vacancies.

¶31

Sri M.A. Subramani, the learned High Court Government

¶32

Pleader appearing for the respondent No.9 submits that those of the employees, whose services came to be regularized in sanctioned posts first, are entitled to be above those employees, whose services are regularized as against the supernumerary posts.

¶33

¶34

Neither the petitioners’ side nor the respondents’ side has

¶35

produced any appointment order. In the absence of the appointment orders, it is not known as to whether they were appointed as F.D.A.s, or S.D.A.s or Graduate Assistants. Further, it is also not known whether the regularization of services took place based on the seniority in their appointment on daily wages. If ‘A’ is appointed on daily wages in 1983 and ‘B’ is appointed in 1984 and if a substantive vacancy arose in 1995, the services of ‘B’ cannot be regularized before the regularization of the services of ‘A’. It is not known what yardstick or norm was followed for regularizing the services of the petitioners and the private respondents and drawing of their seniority list. I am therefore constrained to allow this petition, without expressing any opinion on the tenability or otherwise of the impugned seniority list, by directing the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 to 8 to file their claims and counterclaims before the respondent No.1 in the matter of seniority. Thereafter the respondent No.1 shall pass the necessary orders in accordance with the service regulations.

¶36

¶37

Both the learned advocates Sri G.K. Basavaraj Patel for the petitioners and Sri Rajashekar Hegde for the respondent Nos.2

¶38

to 8 undertake to have their representations filed before the respondent No.1 within two weeks from today. If they do so, the respondent No.1 shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the representations.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Channegowda v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channegowda v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer Vs Mallanna

M. Ansar Baig Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Smt Safiabanu Idrasha Makandara Vs the Commissioner

J Krishnaji Rao Vs the Director

Lakshmi Agencies Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S Five Ocean Corporation Vs the Commissioner of Customs