Allowed

Ramesh P v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024WP/1158/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A daily wage worker demoted from group-C to group-D challenged the withdrawal of his promotion. The Court found the demotion violated natural justice and that he met the circular's eligibility criteria, quashed the demotion order, reinstated him in group-C with pay, subject to a pending enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demotion order dated 04.07.2020 quashed; petitioner reinstated in group-C with pay-scale salary subject to enquiry; enquiry to conclude within six months.

Ramesh P Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10547 WP No. 1158 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1158 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAMESH P., S/O PUTTAVEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DAILY WAGE WORKER AT SILK MANAGEMENT BRANCH, KARNATAKA STATE SILK RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, TALAGATTAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 109

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR STREET, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HORTICULTURE AND SERICULTURE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR STREET, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:10547 WP No. 1158 of 2021

¶16

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KARNATAKA STATE SILK RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, TALAGATTAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 109.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. NAGAVENI G.H., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 04.07.2020 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 04.07.2020, passed by respondent No.3, as per Annexure-F, wherein respondent No.3, as per the impugned order, has demoted petitioner from group-C to group-D.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶24

learned AGA and learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Perused the records.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10547 WP No. 1158 of 2021

¶26

Respondent No.3-Director has issued a circular

¶27

dated 18.05.2015, as per Annexure-A. The circular enables respondents to extend the pay scale of group-C to those daily wage employees who are appointed post 01.07.1984 and passed the SSLC examination and have put in 10 years of service on or before 10.04.2006.

¶28

The petitioner, placing reliance on the circular, submitted a representation as per Annexure-B, requesting the respondents to place the petitioner under group-C pay scale. Since there is inaction on the part of respondents, the petitioner was compelled to knock the doors of this Court. This Court, vide order dated 26.07.2019, allowed the writ petition filed in W.P.No.53653/2016 and directed the respondents to consider the representation.

¶29

Respondent No.3, pursuant to directions issued

¶30

by this Court, promoted the petitioner in the cadre of group-C and also transferred him to the accounts section, which is evident from Annexure-E. However, vide impugned order dated 04.07.2020, respondent No.3 has

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:10547 WP No. 1158 of 2021

¶33

unilaterally withdrawn the promotion extended to the petitioner and petitioner is again placed in group D.

¶34

The order under challenge is liable to be quashed on two counts. Firstly, the impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents, having promoted the petitioner in the cadre of group-C and having transferred the petitioner to the accounts section without notifying the petitioner, erred in unilaterally demoting petitioner. On that sole ground, the impugned order under challenge is liable to be quashed.

¶35

Be that as it may. The impugned order suffers from serious infirmities. On reading the order under challenge, this Court would find that respondent No.3 has virtually misread the judgment rendered by this Court as per Annexure-C. Quoting the judgment, respondent No.3 has come to the conclusion that whether petitioner is entitled for promotion to group-C needs to be resolved after securing advice from the Government. Having arrived

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10547 WP No. 1158 of 2021

¶37

at such a conclusion, respondent No.3 has proceeded to withdraw the order of promotion as per Annexure-D. This Court has examined the circular placed on record vide Annexure-A. Prima facie, the petitioner is found to have the prescribed eligibility. The petitioner was appointed on 21.02.1995 and has put in more than 10 years of service.

¶38

In terms of circular, as on 10.04.2006, the petitioner has passed SSLC and therefore, petitioner's legitimate claim to consider him for the promotion to the post of group-C is reasonable. The impugned order does not indicate on what grounds the petitioner has to be demoted back to group-D by withdrawing the earlier promotion order as per Annexure-D.

¶39

8. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned

¶40

order is not sustainable for the above stated reasons. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10547 WP No. 1158 of 2021

¶44

ii. The impugned order dated 04.07.2020, issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-F is hereby quashed;

¶45

iii. Respondent No.3 shall reinstate petitioner in group C, which will be subject to the outcome of enquiry to be conducted by respondent No.3 and shall also pay the salary in the pay scale of group C;

¶46

iv. The petitioner's right to seek salary in the pay scale of group C from 01.07.2014 shall be subject to outcome of enquiry conducted by respondent No.3.

¶47

v. Respondent No.3 shall conclude enquiry within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

HDK

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21:CT:SNN

¶51

Page No.6 is re-typed and replaced vide court order dated 28.03.2024

Ramesh P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh P 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

Sri Siddalingaiah S Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Sri. K. R. Mahesh Vs the Commissioner

Shri N L Venugopal S/O Lakshmi Narayana Vs the Government Tool Room and Training Centre

Sri M Munikrishnan Vs Union Bank of India

K.N. Ramachandrappa Vs Union of India

Sri C G Badrinath Vs the State of Karnataka