Disposed

Sri Ramesh Bhairaji S/O. Phakirappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2024WP/102772/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contract-appointed Mission Managers under the National Urban Livelihood Mission sought salary increase per operational guidelines dated 18.12.2013, which the second respondent had not implemented despite a representation. The court disposed of the petition with a mandamus directing consideration of the representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 20.03.2024 per clause 6.4(f) of the guidelines dated 18.12.2013, within four weeks.

Sri Ramesh Bhairaji S/O. Phakirappa Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16789 WP No. 102772 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 102772 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RAMESH BHAIRAJI S/O. PHAKIRAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MISSION MANAGER SKILL DEVELOPMENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND LIVELIHOOD, DISTRICT SKILL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, ROOM NO.12, SUVARNA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BELAGAVI-590020, R/O. PLOT NO.1063, C/O. UMESH DONGRE, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶12

SRI. SANJAYA D. KORE, S/O. DIGAMBAR KORE, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: MISSION MANAGER, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURES, DISTRICT SKILL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, D.C. OFFICE, 2^ND FLOOR, ‘A’ BLOCK, DEVAGIRI, HAVERI, R/O. 17^TH CROSS, A BLOCK, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.

¶13

DR. RAVI MUNAVALLI S/O. VITHAL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MISSION, MANAGER SKILL DEVELOPMENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND LIVELIHOOD, DISTRICT SKILL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, DIC BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD, R/O. DODDAGOUDAR CHAWL, 8^TH CROSS, MARATA COLONY, DHARWAD-580008.

¶14

SRI. AMARESH R. S/O. RAMANNA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: MISSION MANAGER, SKILL DEVELOPMENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND LIVELIHOOD, DISTRICT SKILL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, ROOM NO.106, D.C. OFFICE, GADAG,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16789 WP No. 102772 of 2024

¶16

R/O. HANUMANT NAGAR, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, LAST BUS STOP, DHARWAD-580007.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE.)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND LIVELIHOOD, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

THE MISSION DIRECTOR (DAY-NULM) NATIONAL URBAN LIVELIHOOD MISSION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NO.4, 3^RD FLOOR, MYSUGAR BUILDING, OPP. TOWN HALL, J. C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560021.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL) BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590020.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL) HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL) DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580008.

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL) GADAG, DIST: GADAG-582101.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3-R6; R2 – NOTICE SERVED.)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE/PAY THE DIFFERENCE OF SALARY OF

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16789 WP No. 102772 of 2024

¶29

THE PETITIONERS W.E.F. 18.12.2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-E WITH 10% INCREASE IN THE SALARY FOR EVERY 2 YEARS BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-L DATED 20.03.2024 FORTHWITH AND ETC.,.

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 to 6.

¶34

2. The petitioners are all appointed as Community Development Expert, Skill Development and Livelihood Expert in the City Municipal Corporations, District Urban Development Cells, on contract basis under the scheme of comprehensive capacity building for improved urban governance, poverty alleviation-creation of urban poverty elevation cells at various levels. Pursuant to the scheme, petitioners were appointed to their respective posts and they were paid salary. It is the grievance of the petitioners that their salary was not increased by the 2^nd respondent despite

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16789 WP No. 102772 of 2024

¶36

the guidelines which specifies that the salary be increased based on the suitability and the performance to a maximum of 10%. Therefore, the petitioners are aggrieved by non implementation and fulfillment of the guidelines dated 18.12.2013, despite there being a clause to increase the salary by 10% every two years. The petitioners in fact made a representation to the respondent vide Annexure-L for consideration of increase of their salary as per the operational guidelines dated 18.12.2013 vide representation dated 20.03.2024. The same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶37

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer for consideration of the representation vide Annexure-L dated 20.03.2024 in accordance to the guidelines and more specifically clause 6.4(f).

¶38

4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the representation of the petitioners so made for increase of salary in accordance to the guidelines would be considered

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16789 WP No. 102772 of 2024

¶40

based on the suitability and if otherwise, the petitioners are entitled to.

¶41

5. In view of the submission made by the learned

¶42

AGA and the provisions contained in 6.4(f) of the operational guidelines, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law and the guidelines of the National Urban Livelihood Mission. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The petition is disposed of.

¶45

ii) A writ of mandamus is issued to

¶46

respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20.03.2024 vide Annexure-L keeping in mind clause 6.4(f) of the operational guidelines dated 18.12.2013 in accordance with law.

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16789 WP No. 102772 of 2024

¶48

iii) Their representation shall be

¶49

considered within a period of four weeks from the

¶50

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶52

MRK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri Ramesh Bhairaji S/O. Phakirappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramesh Bhairaji S/O. Phakirappa 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

The Executive Board of Vs the State of Karnataka

Dayanandagouda Vs the Superintendent of Police

Shri. Raju S/O Shankar Parit Aliyas Motekar Vs Shri. Prakash Vasant Motekar

Sri. Daneshwari Seva Samsthe Belagavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh S/O Basappa Baraker Vs State of Karnataka

Vinayat Alias Hinayat Alias Gullu S/O Hissain Mohammed Badagi Vs the State of Karnataka