Allowed

Smt.Shubha W/O Nagapati Hegde v. the Director

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2023WP/107572/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking incremental benefits for a retired municipal employee. Quashing an endorsement denying the claim, the court directed the corporation to grant the increment based on a Government Order applicable during her service, to be paid from corporate resources.觉得很严重。

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned endorsement quashed; mandamus issued to grant petitioner the incremental benefit for 25 and 30 years of service within twelve weeks.

Smt.Shubha W/O Nagapati Hegde Vs the Director — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10554 WP No. 107572 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 107572 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.SHUBHA W/O NAGAPATI HEGDE, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/AT: NO.430, PANCHAKSHARI NAGAR, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-25.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S.N. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9^TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.10.11
11:32:07
+0530

¶15

THE HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI-20, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, THE HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-20, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MUNCIPAL CORPORATION-II AND SAMANNAVAYYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, VIDANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN .M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 & R4; SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R3)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10554 WP No. 107572 of 2019

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT bg No.HDMC/20/05/CG/2018-19/120 DATED Nil-052018/01-06-2018, ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶26

following reliefs:

¶27

(a) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement bg. No.HDMC/ 20/ 05/ CG/ 2018-19/ 120, dated NIL-05-2018/ 01-06-2018, issued by the 3d respondent produced at Annexure-D.

¶28

(b) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to grant the benefit confirmed under Government Order dated 14.06.2012 as per the representation dated 27.03.2018, produced at Annexure-C.

¶29

(c) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the G.O. bg. No. NaAaE/ 84/ AHD/ 2015, Bengaluru, dated 23.12.2016 issued by the proposed respondent produced at Annexure-B insofar it relates to giving effect prospectively.

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10554 WP No. 107572 of 2019

¶31

(d) Pass any other order or direction as deems fit under the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petition with costs, in the interest of justice.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel Shri S.N. Rajendra

¶33

appearing for the petitioner; learned AGA Shri M.M. Khannur appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 4; learned counsel Shri G.I. Gachchinamath appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶34

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶35

The petitioner is appointed on temporary basis in Hubballi – Dharwad Municipal Corporation, the 2^nd respondent and later her services are regularized as permanent employee. The petitioner from the date of joining i.e., on 07.08.1984 till the date she retired on attaining the age of superannuation continued to work on solitary post i.e., midwife. After the retirement, the petitioner submits a representation on 27.03.2018 seeking the benefit of additional increment for having completed 25

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10554 WP No. 107572 of 2019

¶37

years and 30 years respectively without getting any promotion. The Corporation communicates to the State seeking clarification. The State clarifies that if at all the petitioner is to be granted the benefit it shall be from out of the resources of the Corporation itself. It is then, the impugned endorsement comes to be issued on the score that the communication from the hands of the State dated 23.12.2016 bars the grant of benefit of increment at 25 years and 30 years respectively. It is this that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Government Order dated 14.06.2012 itself gave a right to the petitioner, there was no necessity to receive any communication at the hands of the State by the Corporation. The petitioner had right under the Government Order itself.

¶39

Learned counsel for the Corporation would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner cannot be granted increment for completion of 25

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10554 WP No. 107572 of 2019

¶41

years and 30 years as the petitioner had retired by the time, the communication comes about on 23.12.2016 which is only a prospective in nature and not retrospective and would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶42

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶43

The afore-narrated facts of the petitioner entering into the service and her retirement is not in dispute. The issue in the lis is with regard to whether the petitioner would be entitled to increment for completion of 25 years and 30 years of service without getting any promotion throughout the service carrier. The issue need not be detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, the State by its Government Order dated 14.06.2012 has clarified the issue, the Government Order insofar as it is necessary for the lis, reads as follows:

¶44

“ಸ��ಆ�ಶ�� : ಎ�� 12 ಎ�ಆ�� 2012 (VIII) �ಂಗ�� , ��ಂಕ 14 �� 2012

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10554 WP No. 107572 of 2019

¶47

�� 6(ii) ರ ! ನ#�ಸ$%�ವ 'ಕರರ() *ರ+ಪ�- .ಜ� 0ತನ 23ೕ5ಗಳ !ನ 7ದಲ 15 23ೕ5ಗಳ !�ವ :;� ಒಂ= >?@ಯ ! ಇಪC DEೖ= ವಷ�ಗಳ �ಲ ಒಂH ಪIೕನ)J ಪKಯ? Lಂ=ವ��ವ ಅಥO Lಂ=ವ�Pವ ಸ�� 'ಕರQR ಆ >?@R Qಗ�ಪ�ಸ$ದ 0ತನ 23ೕ5ಯ ! ಅಥO ಅವ(*ಂ��ವಆST� ಕ0ತನ23ೕ5ಯ ! ಅಥO U�ಯ 0ತನ 23ೕ5ಯ ! , ಆ: ಪ3ದಣಕ�W , 2 ��ವ��ತನಬ��ಯ�� ಂಕ 1 �ಏ�� 2012 �ಂದ X�R ಬ�ZD ಅಥO 25 ವಷ�ಗಳ [\ ]ಣ�^_-ದ ��ಂಕ�ಂದ , ಇದರ ! :;= Wತರ`ೕ , ಆ ��ಂಕ�ಂದ a�� bಡd ಸ��ರ;ಹf�gತE? .

¶48

2. �� 6(ii) ರ ! ನ#�ಸ$%�ವ 'ಕರರ() *ರ+ಪ�- .ಜ� 0ತನ 23ೕ5ಗಳ !ನ 7ದಲ 15 23ೕ5ಗಳ !�ವ :;� ಒಂ= >?@ಯ ! #ವ+E ವಷ�ಗಳ �ಲ ಒಂH ಪIೕನ)J ಪKಯದ Lಂ=ವ��ವ ಅಥO Lಂ=ವ�Pವ ಸ�� 'ಕರQR ಆ >?@R Qಗ�ಪ�ಸ$ದ 0ತನ 23ೕ5ಯ ! ಅಥO ಅವ(*ಂ��ವಆST� ಕ0ತನ23ೕ5ಯ ! ಅಥO U�ಯ 0ತನ 23ೕ5ಯ ! , ಆ: ಪ3ಕರಣಕTನhಯ , 3 ��ವ��ತನಬ��ಯ�� ಂಕ 1 �ಏ�� 2012 �ಂದ X�R ಬ�ZD ಅಥO 30 ವಷ�ಗಳ [\ ]ಣ�^_-ದ ��ಂಕ�ಂದ , ಇದರ ! :;= Wತರ`ೕ , ಆ ��ಂಕ�ಂದ a�� bಡd ಸ��ರ;ಹf�gತE? .”

¶49

The State Government clarifies that the second additional increment for completion of 25 years of service would be granted with effect from 01.04.2012 and the third

¶50

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10554 WP No. 107572 of 2019

¶51

additional increment also for completion of 30 years of service with effect from 01.04.2012, the petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2016. After the retirement on the claim of the petitioner a clarification is sought by the Corporation. The clarification results in an order dated 23.12.2016. The order reads as

¶52

follows:

¶53

ಸ��ರದಆ�ಶ��:ನಅಇ 84 ಎಎj� 2015, �ಂಗ��ಂಕ: 23.12.2016

¶54

ಪ��ವ�ಯ�� ವ��ವ ಅಂಶಗಳ $��%ಯ�� &ಜ( ದ��ನ ಮ+ನಗರ -�.ಗಳ ಅ/0�/ 3ಕರ�4ಸ06ರದಆ8ಶ9:(: ಎ=� 12 ಎ>ಆ?� 2012 (VIII) ��ಂಕ 14.06.2012 ರ��ನಶರ@� ಒಳಪBC ಎರಡ� ಮ@� Eರ� ��ವ� �ತನ ಭG6 Hಲಭ(ವ�� ಭ�ಷ(ವG6KL MೕಡO ಸ06ರP QR&G Mೕ� ಆ8ಶ�S +T ಈ Vಚ�ವ�� 9XಧಪಟC ಮ+ನಗರ -�.ಗಳ 9ಪ[\ಲ�ಂದ]ಭ�ಸತಕ^_`

¶55

ಈ ಆ�ಶವ() ಆm�ಕ ಇ$�ಯ nಪC 5 ��: ಅಇ 600 \ಚp ��ಂಕ 05.12.2016 ರ ! Qೕ��ವ ಸಹಮJಯನhಯ*ರ�-?.”

¶56

9. The order is indicated of the fact that the

¶57

increment is prospective and it has to be disbursed by the resources of the Corporation. There is no indication about disentitlement of the petitioner. The submission of the

¶58

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10554 WP No. 107572 of 2019

¶59

learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that the communication dated 23.12.2016 refers it to be prospective cannot be contrary to the Government Order itself dated 14.06.2012 which grants the benefit to the petitioner. If 14.06.2012 is the date on which the benefit is granted, the petitioner was in service. The petitioner has retired from service on 31.05.2016. Therefore, the impugned endorsement on the basis of the communication dated 23.12.2016 is rendered unsustainable as it is contrary to the Government Order dated 14.06.2012 which gives all the benefits to the petitioner. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶62

(ii) The impugned endorsement stands quashed. mandamus issues to the Corporation to grant the petitioner to redress the grievances of the petitioner as projected in the representation dated

¶63

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10554 WP No. 107572 of 2019

¶64

27.03.2018 strictly inconsonance with the Government Order dated 14.06.2012

¶65

within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Vnp*/ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Smt.Shubha W/O Nagapati Hegde v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Shubha W/O Nagapati Hegde v. the Director

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

Rajappa S/O Yallappa Totaganti Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Adarsh Enterprises, Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Gajanan S/O. Sairob Gaonkar Vs Mr. Narayana S/O. Kashinath Naik

The Management of Vs Jayapal

Kumar Kartik S/O Manjunath Hubballi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Amjad Ansari S/O Deceased M.S Ansari Vs the State of Karnataka