Dismissed

Sri. D. P. Mangarsi S/O. Parameshwwar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2018WP/103129/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired employee challenging the Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting his claim for retrospective promotion. The Court held the claim, made 15 years post-retirement, was belated and lacked merit as the petitioner failed to raise the issue during his service or prove entitlement to earlier dates. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no consequential orders. Claim for retrospective promotion rejected as belated.

Sri. D. P. Mangarsi S/O. Parameshwwar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BELLUNKE

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.103129/2017 (S-KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SRI. D. P. MANGARSI S/O. PARAMESHWWAR, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCC:RETIRED JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE R/AT "NAMASKAR" AMBAGIRI, GANDHINAGAR, SIRSI.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR SRI M M HIREMATH, ADV. & SRI PRASHANT KADADEVAR, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING IN KARNATAKA,

¶16

¶17

NO.11/16, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶18

..... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1389/2010 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.1389/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE- ) AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner was the applicant before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’, for the sake of convenience). He had filed Application No.1389/2010. By order dated 20.09.2016, the said application has been dismissed. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been presented.

¶24

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for

¶25

¶26

respondents No.1 and 2 on advance notice and perused the material on record.

¶27

Petitioner’s counsel has contended that

¶28

the Tribunal was not right in dismissing the application as a result of which petitioner’s right to seek retrospective promotions as well as consequential benefits have been frustrated. He submits that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Director of Agricultural Marketing with effect from 01.01.1970; Deputy Director with effect from 01.01.1977 and Joint Director with effect from 01.01.1987; instead the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director with effect from 04.09.1973 and as Deputy Director with effect from 30.10.1980 and as Joint Director with effect from 12.11.1192 that he ought to have been promoted from the aforesaid earlier dates. Therefore,

¶29

¶30

representations were made on 14.10.2008, 21.01.2009 and on subsequent dates. By the impugned endorsement dated 13.08.2009, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. Being aggrieved, petitioner approached the Tribunal. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner had lost his promotional avenues and consequential monetary benefits and therefore, ought to have directed the respondent authorities to grant the same. But by the dismissal of petitioner’s application, his chances of seeking retrospective promotion and consequential monetary benefits have been lost which has caused injustice to the petitioner.

¶31

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on advance notice for the respondents submitted that initially petitioner was working as Market

¶32

¶33

Committee Secretary and had been absorbed into Government service with effect from 01.05.1968. Thereafterwards there has been revision of pay scales effected in his salary; that the petitioner retired on 31.05.1993 and during the service of petitioner, he hardly raised issue with regard to retrospective promotion. That it is only in the year 2008, long after his retirement (15 years) that the petitioner sought for retrospective promotion and consequential monetary benefits. That the Tribunal has assigned valid reasons for dismissal of the application. The same would not call for any interference before this Court.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we note that the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.1993. Though he may have approached this Court as well as the Tribunal on

¶35

¶36

various issues but his latest grievance seeking retrospective promotion to the post of Assistant Director with effect from 01.01.1970 and as Deputy Director with effect from 01.01.1977 and Joint Director with effect from 01.01.1987 was sought by a representation made on 16.06.2009 and subsequently. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for sustaining the endorsement dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure-A11) issued by the respondent No.1 in response to the

¶37

representations made by the petitioner is that the petitioner has neither highlighted nor made

¶38

out any case as to how he was entitled to any promotion with effect from the aforesaid dates and not with effect from the dates on which he was actually promoted namely, with effect from 04.09.1973 as Assistant Director and with effect from 30.10.1980 as Deputy Director. The Tribunal has noted, in the absence of petitioner

¶39

¶40

making out any case as to how he was entitled to be promoted on earlier dates and as to whether his case had been ignored and his juniors had been promoted, although he was qualified to be considered, there was no reason to interfere with the endorsement/letter dated 13.08.2009 issued by the first respondent. We fully agree with the said reasoning of the Tribunal.

¶41

That apart, we also note that the petitioner has made representations in the year 2008 seeking retrospective promotions with monetary benefits, with effect from 01.01.1970 in the post of Assistant Director, with effect from 01.01.1977 in the post of Deputy Director and with effect from 01.01.1987 in the post of Joint Director. The claim made by the petitioner long after his retirement with effect from the

¶42

¶43

aforesaid dates is hit by delay and latches. Petitioner has slept over his matter during his service and has simply addressed the representation to the respondents seeking such reliefs. The said representation would not call for any consideration inasmuch as the same is belated. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶44

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

Naa

Sri. D. P. Mangarsi S/O. Parameshwwar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D. P. Mangarsi S/O. Parameshwwar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anita D/O Shankar Joshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Janabai W/O Balasaheb 2 Balaso Jatar Vs Bahubali S/O Vrushabh Kalshetty

Manoj S. Kawalekar Vs the Registrar

Smt. Smitha W/O Vinayak Jadhav Vs Sri. Nakul S.S., IAS

Mallikarjuna Siddappa Sangreshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Ghishibhai W/O Champalal Shah Vs the State of Karnataka