Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Smt T v Vijaya

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022WP/24105/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by State officers challenging a Tribunal order granting promotion with retrospective effect to senior stenographers. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that a retrospective undertaking obtained from the State does not validate a promotion conferred on juniors over seniors, holding the State's action devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands rejected dismissing the challenge to the impugned order.

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt T v Vijaya — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.24105/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, MULTI STOREYED BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, V V TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, V V TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI B.RAJENDRA PASAD, HCGP.)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. T V VIJAYA W/O B A SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, STENOGRAPHER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024.

¶18

RUDRESHI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS STENOGRAPHER, OFFICER OF THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DAVANAGERE-577002.

¶19

CHANDRASHEKARA PAPANNA BAVI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, STENOGRAPHER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, GULBARGA – 591304.

¶20

HARISHKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS STENOGRAPHER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MANGALURU-575001.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 29.11.2018 IN APPLICATION NO.2261 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION NO.2261 OF 2009 ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “PRELIMINARY HEARING” THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioners.

¶27

Petitioners are the Principal Secretary,

¶28

Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, The Commissioner, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services and The Director, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services.

¶29

The respondents No.1 to 4 are the applicants, who approached the tribunal being aggrieved by the refusal to grant promotion with retrospective effect from the date their juniors were granted promotions. The facts are not in dispute. The fact that Sri Chandrashekara Papanna Bavi and Sri Harishkumar are juniors to respondents No.1 and 2, is not denied. The fact remains that, two other co-workers namely Sri K. Prakash and Sri Rudreshi who are assigned ranking at serial No.37 and 41 were granted officiating promotion under Rule 32 of the KCSR to the post of Stenographer and on account of they having cleared the

¶30

¶31

departmental exams, were granted promotions. The applicants who were seniors to the said K. Prakash and Sri Rudreshi including the respondents No.3 and 4, had not completed their departmental exams on which count the petitioners permitted to give officiating promotion under Rule 32 of the KCSR to the applicants. It is also not in dispute that by 15.04.1997 both the applicants have completed and cleared the departmental exams and they were fully qualified to be granted officiating promotion under Rule 32 of the KCSR, but the fact remains that the respondents No.3 and 4 were accorded officiating promotion on 23.07.1997 despite they being juniors to the applicants.

¶32

The said respondents No.3 and 4 were promoted as Stenographers with effect from 23.05.2003. Aggrieved, the applicants submitted their objections contending that they had already passed the departmental promotion exams and were eligible to be promoted even prior to respondents No.3 and 4 acquiring the eligibility to be promoted. It so happens that subsequently the applicants were also

¶33

¶34

promoted as Stenographers on 05.08.2008, but it is interesting to note that an undertaking has been obtained from them whereby, the applicants have undertaken not to seek for any financial benefits with retrospective effect. The tribunal after appreciating the case on its merits, has rendered a finding, holding that the respondents No.3 and 4 could not have granted a promotion with effect from an earlier date despite the applicants i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 being seniors to them. The only ground on which the learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to canvass the writ petition is the undertaking produced as Annexure-A14, which reads as under:-

¶35

“¢£ÁAPÀ:25-06-2008.

¶36

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¸ÁÜ£Á¥À£Àß §rÛ DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀÄªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ DyðPÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀå ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ ªÀÄÄZÀÑ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

¶37

¶38

F PÉ¼ÀUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-012004 gÀAzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 32 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ°è

¶39

¶40

²ÃWÀæ°¦UÁgÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è 4 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄw Û zÉÝÃ£É.

¶41

FUÀ vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀ§AiÀÄ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁÜ£Á¥À£Àß §rÛ DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀÄªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ DyðPÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä M¦àgÀÄvÉÛÃ£ÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄÄZÀÑ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. CzÀgÀAvÉ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁÜ£Á¥À£Àß §rÛUÉ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶42

It is interesting to note that the said undertaking

¶43

is not addressed to any authority. It is also not forthcoming

¶44

under which provision of law the respondents/State is entitled to seek for such an undertaking. The very fact that the applicants have called in question the act of promoting their juniors, in our opinion amounts to a retraction of the said undertaking.

¶45

As noted supra, the undertaking has no sanction

¶46

of law. It appears to be more an arm twisting method by the superiors to get over their act of according promotion to employees who were juniors to the applicants. In that view

¶47

¶48

of the matter, the writ petition which is canvassed on the strength of undertaking, in our opinion has no legs to stand on and is totally bereft of any merits. The learned High Court Government Pleader is unable to contradict the findings of the tribunal regarding the fact of the applicants being senior to respondents No.3 and 4. It is also seen that the respondents No.3 and 4 also appear to have accepted the order which is dated 29.11.2018. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that he is unaware if any writ petition is preferred by the respondents No.3 and 4.

¶49

Be that as it may, we have perused the

¶50

reasoning set-out by the tribunal, more particularly, in paragraphs No.7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 the tribunal has discussed the issue threadbare and has given conclusive findings regarding the inter-se seniority of the contesting parties and thereafter has been pleased to partly allow the application and directed that the applicants be placed above the private respondents namely Sri C.P. Bavi and Sri

¶51

¶52

Harishkumar and further directed that the respondents No.3 and 4 be not demoted and that the applicants be given officiating promotion with effect from 23.05.2003 in the post of Stenographs and that they shall be placed above the said Sri C.P. Bavi and Sri Harishkumar in the seniority list.

¶53

In our opinion the relief granted is equitable and fully in consonance with law. The applicants having acquired eligibility for consideration, the non consideration of their case vitiates the action of the petitioners in not according promotion to the respondents with retrospective effect.

¶54

In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, stands rejected.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Chs CT-HR

The State of Karnataka v. Smt T v Vijaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Smt T v Vijaya

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

Sri Venkatesh M Inamdar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr T Shivananjappa Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sri P S Suresh

Mr Ashish Mittal Vs Sri K M Umesh @ K M Umeshwaraiah

Sri C Badarinath Vs the State of Karnataka