Disposed

Ramesh v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/11685/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by an Assistant Executive Engineer challenging non-consideration of his representations for seniority and service conditions. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2019 within eight weeks and communicate the result.

Ramesh Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11685 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E. S. INDIRESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 11685 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O PUNDALIKE RAO, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BOMMAHALLI, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAA PALIKE BENGALURU-560 002.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K. PUTTEGOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, PALIKE OFFICES, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU -560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M A., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶17

¶18

WP No. 11685 of 2019

¶19

TO CONSIDER THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONER BETWEEN 23.09.2002 AND 21.02.2011 IN THE BOARD/BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECKONING SENIORITY IN THE RESPONDENT/BBMP AND PLACE THE PETITIONER AT THE APPROPRIATE RANK IN THE SENIORITY LIST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) AND FURTHER REGULATE HIS SERVICE CONDITIONS IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER - DATED 27.02.2013 (ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ANOTHER DATED 18.02.2019 (ANNEXURE-N TO THE WRIT PETITION) - AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THAT FLOW FROM SUCH CONSIDERATION.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non consideration of the representations dated 27.2.2013 (Annexure-J) and 18.02.2019 (Annexure-N), by the respondent.

¶24

Having taken note of the grievance urged by the petitioner with regard to revising seniority list of Assistant

¶25

¶26

WP No. 11685 of 2019

¶27

Engineers, I am of the opinion that respondent herein be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶28

Accordingly, respondent herein is directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 18.02.2019 within outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law, and the result of the same be made know to the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

SD/JUDGE

¶31

sac*

Ramesh v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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 Manjunatha R Vs the State of Karnataka

H R Dheemanth Vs Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd.

Sowmya Kumari D Vs the State of Karnataka

D Sharanappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt. Chandrakala, Vs the Union of India

Dr v T Banu Vs Managing Director