Dismissed

The Principal Secretary v. K Ramu

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021WP/37313/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order that fixed the seniority list of regularized Excise Guards. The Court held that seniority derived from regularization in the parent department is valid and must be counted, rejecting the State's claim that deployment to supernumerary posts nullified this seniority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and the impugned order of the Tribunal approving the seniority list is affirmed. The promotion list issue left for representation.

The Principal Secretary Vs K Ramu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

W.P.No.37313/2017 (S – KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE) STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶10

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101

¶11

3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY-583101

¶12

4 . THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2^ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC BUS COMPLEX, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027 ...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA.)

¶14

AND :

¶15

1 . K.RAMU S/O LATE KARI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O KURUBARADODDI, HEBBERALU POST,

¶16

¶17

ATHUGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571476, WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/I INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, TURUVEKERE RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶18

2 . H.L.SHRIKANTAIAH WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, J.P.DISTILLARY, HEGGADATIHALLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT SINDE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRs.

¶19

2(a) NAGARATHNAMMA W/O H.L.SHRIKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶20

2(b) ADARSH KUMAR S/O LATE H.L.SHRIKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶21

2(c) USHARANI H.S., D/O LATE H.L.SHRIKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶22

2(d) SOUNDARYA H.S., D/O LATE H.L.SHRIKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ALL ARE R/O HITTALA PURA, UJJINI POST, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123, (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.02.2021.)

¶23

3 . B.L.MANJUNATHA WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, MADHUGIRI RANGE, TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶24

¶25

SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HIS LRs.

¶26

3(a) B.C.RATNAMMA W/O LATE B.L.MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶27

3(b) CHAITRA B.M. D/O LATE B.L.MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶28

3(c) PAVITHRA B.M., D/O LATE B.L.MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶29

ALL ARE R/AT BHEEMANAKUNTE KOTTAGARAHALLI POST, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123.

¶30

(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.02.2021.)

¶31

4 . T.S.RENUKAPPA S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O HEBBUR FARM STOP, TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572120, WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, TUMAKURU RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶32

5 . B.N.NAGAIAH S/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O BISEEGOWDANA DODDI PALACE HONNAMACHANAHALLI POST, HULLYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE,

¶33

M/s NETRAVATHI DISTILLARIES PVT. LTD., B.M.ROAD, AVARAGERE VILLAGE, KUNIGAL, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123

¶34

¶35

6 . R.RANGADHAMAIAH S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O MAHALAXMI NAGAR, BEHIND SHANIDEVARA TEMPLE, KUNIGAL ROAD, MARALUR, TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572102, WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR

¶36

7 . C.KARIBASAPPA S/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.142, KAVISHREE NILAYA, IDSMT LAYOUT, A.M.PALYA MAIN ROAD, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU-572101 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KORATAGERE RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572129 8 . L.J.PRASANNAKUMAR S/O LATE L.S.JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD, 4^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, JAYANAGAR WEST, TUMAKURU, WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE TUMAKURU RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572102 9 . M.S.LOKESHWAR S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O MARASHETTIHALLI POST, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 225 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, GUBBI RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 10 . B.R.AMRUTH S/O LATE RANGAIAH,

¶37

¶38

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O D.N.432/1, KRS AGRAHARA, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572130 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KUNIGAL RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶39

11 . T.B.GURUMURTHY S/O T.C.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O 3^RD MAIN GANDHINAGAR, TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572102 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT., (LESSE OF UNIVERSAL BOTTLES PVT. LTD.) MAROHALLI VILLAGE, N.H.-4, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123

¶40

12 . M.N.LAKSHMANAMURTHY (VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT) S/O MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O NERALAKATTEPALYA, K.G.TEMPLE POST, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216

¶41

13 . B.M.GANGADHARAIAH S/O LATE MUDURAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS C/O LATE K.G.MARIYAPPA, R/O K.R.S. AGRAHARA, B.M ROAD, KUNIGAL, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572130 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KUNIGAL RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶42

14 . SHIVANNA S/O CHIKKAVERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS C/O RADHAMMA, HEBBURU,

¶43

¶44

BEHIND VARADARAJASWAMY TEMPLE, HEBBURU POST, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572120 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, SIRA RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶45

15 . SMT. K.N.SAKAMMA WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, OFFICE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KUNIGAL RANGE, TUMKUR DISTRICT SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER LRs.

¶46

15(a) K.N.MAMATHA RANI D/O LATE K.N.SAKAMMA W/O N.NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O ELN-31, UPPER STREET, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130 (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.02.2021.)

¶47

16 . SRI M.HANUMANAIAH S/O MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O OLD PET, HULLYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KUNIGAL RANGE, KUNIGAL TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶48

17 . SRI B.B.VEERABHADRA SHETTY S/O BHADRASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.152/1, KODAVTTI ROAD, HULLYURUDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE,

¶49

- 7 -

¶50

TIPTUR SUB DIVISION, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶51

18 . SRI T.C.RUDRAPPA S/O CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O TAREDAKUPPE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572120 WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, O/O DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶52

19 . SRI G.N.NAGARAJAPPA O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶53

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRs.

¶54

19(a) RENUKAMMA W/O LATE G.N.NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶55

19(b) G.N.LOHIT S/O LATE G.N.NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶56

19(c) G.N.NEELAMMA D/O LATE G.N.NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE R/O B.KODIHALLI ATTIKATTE POST, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶57

19(d) G.N.GEETHA D/O LATE G.N.NAGARAJAPPA W/O RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NEERALAKATTE PALYA NAGASANDRA POST KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,

¶58

- 8 -

¶59

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572225. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.02.2021.)

¶60

20 . M.K.THIBBAIAH, (RETIRED) AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O MENASAGEREDODDI, KENCHANAHALLI POST, H.DURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123

¶61

21 . A.RAVINDRANATHA S/O A.HANUMESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS EXCISE GUARD, O/O INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, HADAGALI RANGE, BELLARY DISTRICT-583219, WARD NO.1, NEAR OORAMMA TEMPLE HADAGALI-583219

¶62

22 . B.H.JOHN VESLI (RETIRED) AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS SHRI KUMARA COMPOUND OPPOSITE FRIENDS APARTMENT FIRST LINK ROAD, PARVATI NAGARA, BELLARY-583103. …RESPONDENTS

¶63

(BY SRI SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADV. FOR R-1, R-4 TO R-8, R-10, R-13, R-14, R-16 & R-21; R-11, R-12, R-17, R-20 & R-22 ARE SERVED;

¶64

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.08.2018 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;

¶65

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.06.2019 PETITION AGAINST

¶66

R-18 IS DISMISSED; R-2(a-d), R-3(a-c), R-15 (a), R-19 (a, b & d) SERVED; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.01.2021 NOTICE TO R-R-19(c) IS DISPENSED WITH.)

¶67

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 13.07.2016 IN APPLICATION Nos.3109-3128/2011 C/W APPLICATION Nos.570

¶68

¶69

& 571/2013 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.

¶70

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶71

O R D E R

¶72

The State has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru

¶73

(‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application Nos.31093128/2011 connected with Application Nos.570571/2013.

¶74

Succinctly stated the facts are that

¶75

respondents herein were working in the cadre of Group – C Excise Guards in Tumkur District from 2008-09 and some of them were also working in the same cadre in Bellary District from 2007-08. It is not in dispute that the applicants/respondents herein were initially working as employees on daily wages and subsequently they were regularized in the scale of Group – C during the year 1991-1994 and continued in the

¶76

10 -

¶77

supernumerary posts in their respective parent

¶78

departments.

¶79

applicants/respondents that they were put in 10 years of uninterrupted service before their regularization. The Deputy Commissioner of Tumkur and the Deputy Commissioner of Bellary, redeployed the regularized employees working under their control in supernumerary posts, including the

¶80

applicants/respondents to the Excise Department as Excise Guards. The Excise Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Tumkur and Bellary after considering the objections of the applicants/respondents published the seniority list of Excise Guards taking into consideration the eligibility date as the date of applicants joining in the Excise Department. Further, a final consolidated seniority list

¶81

11 -

¶82

as on 31.12.2008 was published by the Excise Commissioner on 11.02.2011.

¶83

Being aggrieved with the said seniority list, the applicants/respondents herein filed applications before the Tribunal challenging the seniority list inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 therein to take action and take appropriate orders granting of consequential benefits flowing from Annexure – A12 Official Memorandum dated 11.02.2011 issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Excise. The Tribunal allowed the applications. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶84

Learned AGA would contend that the counting of service of the respondents herein for seniority ought to have been taken from their deployment to the Excise Department in the year 2008 as Excise Guards against the regular sanctioned posts. The Tribunal grossly erred in considering the service of

¶85

- 12 -

¶86

the respondents from the date of their regularization in the Department of Sericulture between 1991-1994 which tantamounts to granting of retrospective seniority when they were not entered in the parent department which is not permissible in law. The Tribunal has failed to apply the well settled principles of law to the case on hand while allowing the applications and directing the State/petitioners to re-fix the rankings of the applicants/respondents.

¶87

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 4 to 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 21 justifying the impugned order submitted that the Tribunal has extensively considered the factual aspects vis-à-vis well settled law inasmuch as the service of regularized employees in the supernumerary posts for the purpose of counting the seniority. Learned counsel submitted that the seniority of the regularized employees should be counted from the date of regularization and the service rendered in

¶88

13 -

¶89

the supernumerary posts should be taken into account while issuing the seniority list. Inviting the attention of

¶90

the Court to the Official Memorandum dated 05.09.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Tumkur District, Tumkur submitted that at the time of passing of the redeployment order itself it was made clear that the applicants/respondents have been redeployed to the post of Excise Guards, their seniority shall be determined as per the second proviso to Rule 6

¶91

of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 and the conditions that their seniority shall be determined from the date of regularization in the mother department is to be imposed after fulfilling conditions laid down in the Government Order No.DPAR/2/SLC/90 dated 06.08.1990.

¶92

We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶93

14 -

¶94

The fulcrum of dispute relates to the date to be considered for fixing the seniority of the applicants/respondents herein in view of their redeployment to the post of the Excise Guards subsequent to their regularization in the year 1991-94. The Official Memorandum dated 05.09.2008 relating to the redeployment of the supernumerary Group – C officials to the vacant posts itself makes it clear that the seniority of the officials who have been redeployed to the

¶95

posts of Excise Guards shall be determined as per Second proviso to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 which reads thus:-

¶96

“6. The transfer of a person in public interest from one class or grade of a service to another class or grade carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the later for the purposes of seniority; and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade from which he was transferred;

¶97

- 15 -

¶98

xxxxxxxx

¶99

Provided further, that the seniority of a person transferred in public interest vis a vis the persons actually holding the post in the Class or Grade to which he is transferred shall be determined on the date of such transfer with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade from which he was transferred.”

¶100

It is stated in the Official Memorandum dated 05.09.2008 that the seniority of the redeployed officials shall be determined from the date of their regularization in mother department after fulfilling conditions laid down in Government Order dated 06.08.1990. There is no dispute regarding fulfilling of the conditions in the Government Order dated 06.08.1990. As such, the conditions that their seniority shall be determined from the date of regularization in the mother department cannot be given a go-by by the petitioners - State merely for the reason that they are

¶101

16 -

¶102

supernumerary posts notwithstanding their

¶103

regularization.

¶104

The Tribunal has referred to the Application No.6742/2013 (T.C. Shylaja v. The Principal Secretary and another) as well as Application No.6740/2013 (S. Hulgappa v. Principal Secretary, Department of Operation and others) , wherein it has been held that the service of the regularized employees in the supernumerary posts should be counted from the date of regularization and the service rendered in the supernumerary posts should be taken into account while giving ranking to the said employees in the seniority list.

¶105

It is stated at the bar that the said orders have been reached finality and the State has applied the said principles of law laid down by the Tribunal for similarly situated officials who were regularized on par with the applicants/respondents herein. In such

¶106

17 -

¶107

circumstances, discriminating the applicants/

¶108

respondents herein on the ground of supernumerary posts which has already been considered by the Tribunal and held in favour of the similarly placed officials cannot be a ground for the State to challenge the issue which has reached finality insofar as similarly situated officials are concerned in fixing the seniority list.

¶109

In view of the well reasoned order of the

¶110

Tribunal, we do not find any exception with the same and accordingly we approve the same. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶111

At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the State Government has published the promotion list on 31.01.2021 wherein some of the respondents herein are not figured who are indeed legally entitled to, for such promotion.

¶112

18 -

¶113

It is needless to observe that such aggrieved

¶114

respondents are at liberty to give a representation to the petitioners in this regard and on such representation being made, the State Government shall consider the same in the light of the observations made hereinabove and take a decision in accordance with law in an expeditious manner.

¶115

All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶116

Sd/JUDGE

¶117

Sd/JUDGE

¶118

PMR

The Principal Secretary v. K Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Secretary v. K Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt R Hemalatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. D.v.Govinda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pramila Cheriath Vs the State of Karnataka

Miss Radhika Vs the Officer Commanding