Allowed

Sri.Suresh S/O Khulu Bingekar v. the District Sessions Judge

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2024WP/107567/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired First Division Assistant challenging an order that tied the disbursement of his promotion arrears to the handover of properties, despite an earlier endorsement showing he had surrendered the specified properties earlier.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.01.2019 was set aside. The matter was remitted to the respondent to take cognizance of the earlier endorsement and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Sri.Suresh S/O Khulu Bingekar Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:5166 WP No. 107567 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 107567 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.SURESH S/O KHULU BINGEKAR AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE, R/O KALISHITTA, BAAD, PO: NANDANGADDA, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. (SR.CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI B.M.BALIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-Q NO.29/2019 DATED 25.01.2019 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR, BY REVOKING THE CONDITION THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF PAY AND ARREARS SHALL BE DRAWN SUBJECT TO CONDITION THAT THE PETITIONER SHALL HAND OVER THE PROPERTIES IN SC NO.54/2000, 35/2002

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5166 WP No. 107567 of 2019

¶18

AND 56/2002 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR DATED 25.01.2019.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar as per AnnexureQ.

¶22

The facts leading to the case are as under: Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on

¶23

31.05.2012 having completed 32 years of service in the cadre of First Division Assistant. Petitioner’s grievance is that though he was eligible for promotion as on 2011, respondent No.2 failed to publish the seniority list in the cadre of First Division Assistant on account of administrative reasons. Though respondent has passed an order in Order No.29/2019 in terms of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.101035/2015, thereby notionally promoting the petitioner as Sheristedar with effect from

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5166 WP No. 107567 of 2019

¶25

01.06.2011, the respondent in the impugned order has indicated that difference of pay and arrears shall be drawn

¶26

and disbursed to the petitioner subject to petitioner handing over the properties in S.C.Nos.54/2000, 35/2002 and 56/2002.

¶27

Petitioner’s grievance is that this condition imposed in Order No.29/2019 is contrary to endorsement dated 22.12.2018 issued by the Chief Administrative Officer as per Annexure-M.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.

¶29

The respondent has granted notional promotion to the petitioner as Sheristedar with effect from 01.06.2011. Consequently, the difference of pay and arrears is ordered to be disbursed to the petitioner subject to petitioner handing over properties in S.C.Nos.54/2000, 35/2002 and 56/2002.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5166 WP No. 107567 of 2019

¶31

Petitioner’s claim is that he has handed over the

¶32

properties and the same is endorsed by the Chief Administrative Officer as per Annexure-M. I deem it fit to cull out the endorsement dated 22.12.2018, which reads as under:

¶33

“Ref No.5782/2018

¶34

Court of the Prl.District & Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar. Dated: 22.12.2018.

¶35

To,

¶36

The 1^st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Karwar, Sitting at Sirsi.

¶37

Respected Sir,

¶38

Sub: Submission of properties in SC No.36/2002 & 56/2002 (Karwar Town PS Cr. No.37/2000) & SC 27/2012 (Yellapur PS Cr.No.147/2011 on the file of this court.

¶39

With reference to the subject cited above, I have been directed to submit the entire properties in SC No.35/2002 & 56/2002 (Karwar Town PS Cr. No.37/2000) & SC No.27/2012 (Yellapur PS Cr. No.147/2011) on the file of this court which was already transferred to your court on 01-01-2018 & 0512-2018.

¶40

The said properties are handed over to Sri.Dayanad L.Naik, SDA of this court with a direction to submit the said properties to the 1^st Addl. District and Sessions Court, Karwar, Sitting at Sirsi well in time.

¶41

By order of the Court,

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC-D:5166 WP No. 107567 of 2019

¶44

Sd/Chief Administrative Officer, Prl.District & Sessions Court, U.K., Karwar.”

¶45

On bare perusal of the endorsement at

¶46

Annexure-M, this Court would find that the petitioner has

¶47

handed over the properties relating to three sessions case i.e., S.C.Nos.35/2002, 56/2002 and 27/2012. However, a discrepancy has arisen concerning the identification of one S.C. number. In the order issued by the Principal District Judge, the SC Nos. are listed as 54/2000, 35/2002, and 56/2002, differing from the petitioner's submission. In light of this inconsistency, it is incumbent upon the learned Principal District Judge to meticulously cross-reference the details provided by the petitioner to ascertain the accuracy of the properties and their corresponding S.C. numbers.

¶48

Therefore, I deem it fit to remit the matter back

¶49

to the respondent to take cognizance of the endorsement dated 22.12.2018. The respondent shall also bear in mind

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5166 WP No. 107567 of 2019

¶51

that petitioner is denied difference in pay and arrears since

¶52

2011 as he was eligible for promotion in 2011 itself.

¶53

In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶56

(ii) The impugned order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar as per AnnexureQ is hereby set aside;

¶57

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent who shall take cognizance of the endorsement issued by the Chief Administrative Officer as per Annexure-M and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶58

(iv) Pending I.As.’, if any, do not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶59

¶60

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

¶61

SD/JUDGE

Sri.Suresh S/O Khulu Bingekar v. the District Sessions Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Suresh S/O Khulu Bingekar v. the District Sessions Judge

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

Ms Alfa S Vs the Chief Secreary

State Bank Retireees Association Vs State Bank of India

Mr Premachandra Vs Mr G T Nanjareddy

M L Pradyumna Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr H C Devarajegowda Vs the University of Mysore

Sri S M Ramakrishna Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board