Allowed

H.T. Indrachala S/O Late Sanna Thimmappa v. the Management of Nekrtc

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2022WP/108572/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an impugned communication issued by the Respondent Corporation that rejected the petitioner's request to consider two years of training period for salary fixation, finding the order arbitrary due to lack of reasons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication dated 10.08.2018 was quashed. Liberty granted to file a fresh representation within four weeks.

H.T. Indrachala S/O Late Sanna Thimmappa Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 108572 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 108572 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H.T. INDRACHALA S/O LATE SANNA THIMMAPPA AGE ABOUT: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: AT and POST: HULKERI, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BASAVANA GOUD T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC BALLARY DIVISION, BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BALLARI.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI & STM. VAISHALI K.KALADAGI, .,ADVOCATES)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN NO.E/KaRaSa/Ba/V/ Sibbandi/P-21/425/2014 DATED 13.08.2014 AND ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G BEARING NO.E/ KaRaSa/OV/ SibbandiC-4/1545-2018-19 DATED 10.08.2018.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP No. 108572 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner was reinstated into service by the respondent-Corporation and the salary of the petitioner was also fixed. However, the Corporation did not take into account the two years training undergone by the petiitoner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P. No.104835/2015. This Court, by order dated 15.03.2018 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for taking into account the two years training period undergone by him for the purpose of fixing salary. Thereafter, the Corporation has issued the impugned communication rejecting the request against which the present petition is filed.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶22

learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

¶23

A perusal of the impugned communication indicates that no reasons are assigned for rejecting the request of the petitioner for considering the two years training period undergone by him for the purpose of fixing salary. Hence, the impugned communication issued by respondent-Corporation, in

¶24

¶25

WP No. 108572 of 2019

¶26

the absence of any reasons, is arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶27

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i) The petition is allowed.

¶30

ii) The impugned communication dated 10.08.2018 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed.

¶31

iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation afresh for redressal of his grievance with the respondent. If such a representation is submitted within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date the representation is submitted by the petitioner.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97

H.T. Indrachala S/O Late Sanna Thimmappa v. the Management of Nekrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.T. Indrachala S/O Late Sanna Thimmappa v. the Management of Nekrtc

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

Smt.Fakkirawwa W/O Santosh Goravanakolla Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Prema D/O Ramanna Vaddar, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

The Town Municipal Council, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri.Mahantesh Mariyappa Hadimani Vs the Divisional Controller

Shri. Mabusab @ Mehaboobsab S/O Razaksab Vs the State of Karnataka

N M Kittur Vs the Managing Director