Dismissed

Sri. S. Narayana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2021WP/62192/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order denying revised pay scales benefits. The Court upheld the dismissal, noting the petitioner was treated as a work charged employee at his promotion, thus ineligible for revised scales and automatic promotion at the time.

What did the court decide?

Disallowed the claim for revised pay scales and special promotion as the petitioner was a work charged employee at material times, upholding the Tribunal order.

Sri. S. Narayana Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH 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.62192/2016 (S – KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI S.NARAYANA S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED DRIVER FROM P.W.D. DEPARTMENT, R/AT ‘MANJUSHREE NILAYA’, PADUVARY VILLAGE, BYNDOOR POST, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 214. ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS & INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

2 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER COMMUNICATIONS & BUILDINGS (SOUTH), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

¶15

3 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH ENGINEERING DIVISION, UDUPI ZILLA PANCHAYATH UDUPI-576 101.

¶16

4 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UDUPI ZILLA PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, BYNDOOR KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 214. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4.)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.08.2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION No.2888/2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has assailed the order dated

¶22

20.8.2016 passed in Application No.2888/2013 by the

¶23

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶24

Succinctly stated the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner in the office of the

¶25

¶26

Executive Engineer, Shimoga Division, P.W.D.

¶27

Department on 13.08.1968. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted on 21.01.1977 as Driver as per the order of the Superintendent Engineer, Shimoga Circle and posted to the office of the Minor Irrigation Department, Chitradurga. Subsequently, he is transferred to the office of the Asst. Engineer, Panchayatraj Engineering Sub Division, Byndoor, Udupi, on 30.06.1978 and retired on 30.06.2001 after attaining superannuation.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent has issued the endorsement dated 24.07.2010 denying the benefit of the revised pay scales as per the revised pay scales of 1994 and 1998. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal in Application No.2497/2002 aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not considering his representation dated 01.07.2001 wherein the re-fixation of his pay in the revised pay scales of 1994 and 1998 and sanction the

¶29

¶30

benefit under time bound advancement scheme and also the benefit of automatic grant of special promotion to the senior scale of pay to the post of Driver was claimed. The Tribunal by order dated 6.8.2007 in Application No.2497/2002 disposed of the matter with a direction to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondents within 30 days from the date of the order by making a detailed representation in writing giving the details of the scale of pay etc., and if such representation is made, the concerned respondent to examine the representation strictly in accordance with law keeping in mind the Karnataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983 and Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic Grant of Special Promotion to Senior Scale of Pay) Rules, 1991, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order or the representation, as the case may be, whichever is later. In compliance with the said order, the 2^nd respondent has issued the endorsement dated

¶31

¶32

24.07.2010 which was the subject matter of

¶33

Application No.2888/2013 which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner stoutly

¶35

contended that the respondents ought to have given effect to of the Government order dated 04.09.1992 and 28.03.1994 in considering the pay scale of the petitioner. Inviting the attention of the Court to the Service Register maintained by the Department, learned counsel argued that the petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner through the Employment Exchange, Shimoga Division on 13.8.1968. At the time of granting promotion as driver on 21.01.1977, for the first time, his appointment was shown as work charged employee and the Government Order dated 04.09.1992 was not

¶36

given effect to while fixing the revised pay scale. His services for five years from 01.01.1983 to 13.8.1988 was not considered while providing time bound promotion

¶37

¶38

after the completion of 10 years service in a single post and automatic promotion for completion of 15 years of service.

¶39

It was submitted that the Tribunal

¶40

considering the petitioner as a work charged employee has held that time bound advancement (TBA) and the time bound promotion (TMP) granted in terms of the Rules are valid. The Tribunal grossly erred in not considering the service register and other records which indicates that the petitioner was appointed as a cleaner through employment exchange on 12.08.1968. It was further submitted that the request of promotion in the cadre of senior driver also has not been suitably considered by the Tribunal.

¶41

Learned AGA for the respondents justifying the impugned order submitted that the petitioner though was originally appointed on 13.8.1968, at the time of promotion as driver on 21.01.1977, he has been

¶42

- 7 -

¶43

shown as work charged employee and accordingly TBA

¶44

and TBP were given with effect from 13.08.1988 and 13.08.1993 respectively. Considering these aspects the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal.

¶45

We have carefully considered the rival

¶46

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶47

The petitioner is assailing the impugned order mainly on the ground that the service register and other records at the time of his original appointment on 13.8.1968 has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that at the time of his promotion as a driver on 21.01.1977, his appointment was shown as work charged employee. His services were regularized on 01.01.1983. The Accountant General in Karnataka fixed the pension of the petitioner considering him as a regularized employee from the work charged establishment subsequent to his

¶48

¶49

retirement on 30.6.2001. On the basis of the TBA and TBP given as applicable to the work charged employee, the 2^nd respondent has issued an endorsement dated 24.07.2010 denying the benefit of revised pay scales as per the revised pay scales of 1994 an 1998. Having regard to the material aspects, the Tribunal has rightly confirmed the same.

¶50

Though the learned counsel heavily placed reliance on the Government Order dated 04.09.1992 to contend that his revised pay scale ought to have been fixed in terms of the said Government Order, the same requires to be negated because though he was promoted as Driver, his appointment is shown as work charged employee in the service register and accordingly his annual pay increments were granted. The petitioner has not challenged the entry made in the service register showing him as work charged employee at the relevant time. Even subsequent to the promotion and

¶51

¶52

regularization, he has not aired any grievance regarding his status as work charged employee. The TBA and TBP applicable to the work charged employee were extended for which no voice was raised. It is subsequent to his retirement on 30.6.2001, the petitioner has made an attempt to claim pensionary benefits with the re-fixation of his revised pay scale of 1994 and 1998 and to grant the special promotion to senior scale of pay in the post of Driver which could not be applicable to the work charged employee.

¶53

The Tribunal has categorically observed that no injustice has been done to the petitioner. The petitioner has been given the pensionary benefits applicable to the Public Works Department employees appointed in the work charged establishment giving benefit of 5 years additional service in the work charged establishment before regularization including the

¶54

10 -

¶55

revised pay scales. Hence, we do not find any merit in

¶56

the arguments of the learned counsel in this regard.

¶57

Similarly as regards promotion sought by the petitioner, the Tribunal has recorded that the 2^nd respondent has assured as per the endorsement dated 24.07.2010 i.e., his case will be considered if any of his juniors are given promotion to the said post in future and suitable eligibility date will be fixed based on which he will be entitled for additional benefits, if any. As such, the petitioner’s grievance has been addressed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶58

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find

¶59

any merit in the writ petition. However, it is needless to observe that the respondents shall strictly adhere to the assurance made to the petitioner as recorded by the Tribunal and comply the same.

¶60

11 -

¶61

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition

stands dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Dvr:

Sri. S. Narayana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S. Narayana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Anthoji Rao M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Narasimhamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S v Nagaraja Setty Vs Smt S v Sulochana

The Director Vs Sri T K Pratap Kumar

State by Vs Ramesh