Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Smt Shahanajunnisa

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2022WP/24202/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order directing the State to consider applications for retrospective promotion of Audit Officers. The court found no grounds for further intervention.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merits and no grounds were found warranting further consideration.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.24202/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶11

THE PRINCIPAL DRIECTOR KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT 3^RD FLOOR, A BLOCK TTMC BUILDING, BMTC COMPLEX SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT SHAHANAJUNNISA AGED 59 YEARS, D/O SRI SYED PEER, WORKING AS AUDIT OFFICER, O/O FINANCE OFFICER RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041

¶16

¶17

SRI M SHIVASHANKAR AGED 47 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI C MUNIPAPAIAH WORKING AS AUDIT OFFICER, O/O THE COMMISSIONER STATE EXCISE DEPARTMENT 2^ND FLOOR, TTMC SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027. 3. SMT MARIA OORIAL ABGAIL J, AGED 57 YEARS D/O LATE SRI THOMAS SUSAIRAJ, WORKING AS AUDIT OFFICER O/O ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, 4^TH BLOCK BMTC BUILDING, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027. 4. SRI P VIJAYA AGED 59 YEARS 5 MONTHS, S/O SRI PAPANNA REDDY AUDIT OFFICER PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, VISHWESHWARAIAH JALA NIGAMA NIYAMITHA, CENTRAL OFFICE CHITRADURGA-577501

¶18

SMT P S CHITRA AGED 47 YEARS W/O SRI SHIBU THOMAS WORKING AS AUDIT OFFICER O/O THE DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 2^ND FLOOR, V V TOWERS PODIUM BLOCK, FINANCE SECTION, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

¶20

SRI MAHADEV S DANDARGI A.O. AGED 51 YEARS, S/O SRI SIDRAMAPPA AUDIT OFFICER O/O PRINCIPAL CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER KBJNL, ALMATTI-586201

¶21

SRI H VENKATESH AGED 56 YEARS, S/O SRI HANUMANTHAIAH T WORKING AS AUDIT OFFICER, O/O THE JOINT DIRECTOR, BENGALURU LOCAL AUDIT CIRCLE, 4^TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560027

¶22

SRI S YESHWANTH KUMAR AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI S SHANTHA RAO WORKING AS AUDIT OFFICER, REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001

¶23

SRI Y S RAMESH AGED 57 YEARS, S/O SRI SHANKAREGOWDA, WORKING AS AUDIT OFFICER, O/O THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K P WEST, BENGALURU ... RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2021 IN APPLICATION NOS. 1825-1833/2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE – A ETC.

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioners who are the Principal Secretary, Finance Department and Principal Director, Karnataka State Audit & Accounts Department.

¶29

The respondents are the applicants and had approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and the tribunal by order dated 01.07.2021 was pleased to allow the application under which, it was prayed that the promotions accorded to them ought to be with retrospective effect i.e. from the date on which they were placed in independent charge by invoking the provisions of rule 32 of KCSR.

¶30

The facts are not in dispute. All the applicants are working in the cadre of Superintendent of the Karnataka State Audit & Accounts Department and that they were placed in independent charge of Accounts Superintendent with effect from 20.05.2017 by invoking rule 32 of the KCSR. That subsequently, they came to be accorded regular promotion and with prospective effect.

¶31

¶32

In that background, the applicants submitted the representations dated 20.06.2019 and 06.03.2021 to the petitioners praying that the case of promotion be considered with retrospective effect i.e. from the date on which they were placed in independent charge under Rule 32 of KCSR. The tribunal after examining the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 2 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Rules 1978 (for short ‘KSCS (PPP) Rules’), has been pleased to allow the application and has further directed the respondents/petitioners to consider the representation in the light of its observations. The learned Government Pleader is unable to point out any error or illegality in the reasoning by the Tribunal to allow the applications.

¶33

The rules, more particularly, sub-rule (3) of rule 2 of KSCS (PPP) Rules, clearly provides for a scenario similar to which, the respondents are in. On a query, the learned High Court Government Pleader is unable to state as to whether the petitioners were ineligible to hold the post as on the date they were placed in independent charge under rule 32 or as to whether there was no vacancy on the date they were placed in independent charge of the said promotional post. The only

¶34

¶35

excuse pointed is that the promotions were held-up in view of the B.K. Pavitra & Others Vs. Union of India and Others, case.

¶36

We see no nexus between the contention canvassed and the facts of the instant case. That apart, the order impugned is a direction to consider the representations. In that view of the matter, we do not find any grounds warranting further consideration of the writ petition.

¶37

Accordingly, petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Chs

CT-HR

The State of Karnataka v. Smt Shahanajunnisa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Smt Shahanajunnisa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Richard Mathew

Sri M Muralidhara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sree Bhagawan Maruthi Temple Trust (Regd) Vs Mr.Tushar Girinath

Ajay R Gowda Vs Janaki Krishnappa

Ajay R Gowda Vs Janaki Krishnappa

Sri. Shrirama Vs the State of Karnataka