Dismissed

Shri Subhas T Gorawar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023WP/7749/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of cadre change granting seniority below the last graduate. The Court held that the petitioner filed the petition after a delay of seven years, constituting inordinate delay and laches.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Shri Subhas T Gorawar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43924 WP No. 7749 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 7749 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SHRI SUBHAS T GORAWAR S/O TIRKAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AT CORPORATE OFFICE CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY CESC MYSORE R/AT NO.25, 2^ND MAIN 6^TH CROSS, NIVEDITHANAGAR MYSORE - 560 002

¶9

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43924 WP No. 7749 of 2022

¶14

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009

¶15

THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR ) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED HEAD OFFICE KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1; SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED FINAL SENIORITY LIST DATED 27.08.2021 VIDE ANNEXUR-Q ISSUED BY R3 AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ASSIGNING RANKING AT SL.NO.3395 TO THE PETITIONER AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43924 WP No. 7749 of 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) had passed an order dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure-'J'), by which it accorded approval to the change of cadre of Assistant Executive (Non-Graduate) [hereinafter, 'AEE (Non-Graduate)'], who had acquired BE/AMIE qualification to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Graduate) [hereinafter 'AEE (Graduate)], subject to two conditions.

¶24

The first condition was that, there should be a written request from AEE (Non-Graduate) who had acquired BE/AMIE qualification for the change of cadre and the second condition was that the seniority of AEE (NonGraduates), who had acquired Degree and opted for change of cadre as AEE (Graduate) would be reckoned from the date of issuance of the order and their seniority in the seniority list of AEE (Graduate) would be fixed below the junior most AEE (Graduate).

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:43924 WP No. 7749 of 2022

¶27

It is not in dispute that the petitioner, on

¶28

acquiring B.E. Degree, opted for change of cadre by submitting a representation on 24.08.2012. However, it appears that no action was taken on his representation by the KPTCL, since disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. Subsequently, on conclusion of departmental proceedings, the petitioner made a second request for change of cadre. The KPTCL, accepting the said request, granted change of cadre to the petitioner by order dated 29.08.2015 at Annexure-'N', which is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶29

It is the contention of petitioner that he cannot be deprived of his seniority when he has made a request for change of cadre in August 2012, i.e., immediately after he acquired the Degree. It is submitted that any inaction on the part of KPTCL in considering the request of petitioner cannot be fastened on him and he cannot be prejudiced by their inaction.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:43924 WP No. 7749 of 2022

¶32

Learned counsel submits that the pendency of departmental enquiry would have no relevance for KPTCL

¶33

to consider the request of petitioner for change of cadre, since both of them are nowhere relatable to each other.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentKPTCL, on the other hand, contends that the first request of the petitioner made in August, 2012 was not considered, because of the pendency of departmental enquiry and this position was acquiesced by the petitioner. It is further contended that on conclusion of the departmental enquiry, a second request was made and the same has been accepted by the KPTCL within a reasonable time.

¶35

It is also contended that the conditions, under which the change of cadre was permitted, were applied by the KPTCL and hence, no fault can be found in the impugned order wherein the seniority of the petitioner is fixed below the last of AEE (Graduate) and the change in cadre is given effect from 29.08.2015.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:43924 WP No. 7749 of 2022

¶38

It is further submitted that this petition has been filed on 05.04.2022 challenging the order at Annexure-'N' dated 29.08.2015, i.e., after a period of seven years and therefore, if the present petition is entertained, it is obvious that several other people who had been promoted in the interregnum would be put to severe prejudice. It is also submitted that since the petitioner had chosen not to challenge the impugned order dated 29.08.2015 for seven long years, he would not be entitled for any relief.

¶39

As already noticed above, it is not in dispute

¶40

that a request was made by the petitioner in August 2012 for change of cadre, but he did not choose to take it to a logical conclusion and he accepted the fact that the change of cadre could not be considered during the pendency of departmental enquiry. The fact that the petitioner, thereafter, sought a change of cadre by making one more application in the year 2014, itself, goes to show that the petitioner acquiesced to the fact that he would not be

¶41

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43924 WP No. 7749 of 2022

¶42

entitled for change of cadre due to the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, his second request for change of cadre was accepted by the KPTCL on 29.08.2015. However, the petitioner chose not to challenge the same till 05.04.2022. In my view, this inordinate delay of seven years in filing the present writ petition questioning the change of cadre made in the year 2015 cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶43

In view of dismissal of Writ Petition, I.A.No.2/2023 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

VGR

Shri Subhas T Gorawar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Subhas T Gorawar v. the State of Karnataka

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 Kaneez Ayesha Vs the Managing Director (Elec)

Vysaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niaymitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nandish R Vs the Chief Secretary to Government

Sri Kishore K B Vs the Commissioner

Sri Gopinath C N Vs State of Karnataka

Prof. H. Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka