Writ petition filed by a retired government employee challenging the rejection of his claim for a higher pay scale for a past period. The court dismissed the petition on grounds of delay, estoppel, and lack of merit as the petitioner had previously enjoyed benefits from 1983 onward.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1446 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
W/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT SRIDHAR NILAYA
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
OPP. MALNAD ENGINEERING COLLEGE VIDYUTH NAGAR, SALAGAME ROAD,
HASSAN - 573201
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.30.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEX-C AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD.21.7.2009 VIDE ANNEX-B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated
30.10.2009 passed by the respondent No.2 refusing to grant higher scale of pay for the period 29.04.1983 and 29.04.1997. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 21.07.2009.
as a Second Division Clerk in the year 1961 and continued in the said post till 1972. He was promoted as First Division Clerk on 25.11.1972. After he passed the ministerial higher examination, he was granted an
increment and continued as First Division Clerk. After completing 10 years of service in the post of First Division Clerk, he was granted next higher pay scale. He contends that higher scale of pay was given to him, without he opting for it. The petitioner was then promoted as Senior Assistant on 29.04.1983. The petitioner purportedly submitted his requisition on 17.05.1983 exercising his option to seek modification of the order dated 26.02.1983 and to extend the benefit of the higher pay scale from the date of his promotion as Senior Assistant i.e., on 29.04.1983. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 did not consider his request. The petitioner retired from the service during the year 1998 and thereafter on 21.07.2009 submitted a request to fix his pay scale in the higher scale of Assistant Accounts Officer for the period 29.04.1983 and 29.04.1997. The respondents however, rejected the request of the petitioner by way of the impugned order.
NC: 2024:KHC:34088 WP No. 1446 of 2012
once the petitioner had availed the benefit of a Senior Assistant from the year 1983, till he retired, he cannot now turn around and claim that the promotion granted to him was without he opting for it. He thus contends that the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold and claim additional benefit on the ground that he did not exercise his option to be promoted.
7. It is not in dispute that after the petitioner had
completed 10 years of service as First Division Clerk, he was granted the promotion as well as higher scale of pay with effect from 26.02.1983. The petitioner therefore cannot now turn around and claim that he was entitled to a higher scale of pay, after being promoted to Senior Assistant on 29.04.1983. The petitioner having enjoyed the benefit from the year 1983, till he retired, cannot now make a claim that he did not exercise his option for a
higher scale in the year 1983. Thus there is no error committed by the respondents in rejecting the request of the petitioner for claiming the benefit of higher pay scale from the date of he working as a Senior Assistant i.e., from 29.04.1983.
Consequently, this writ petition lacks merits and is
dismissed.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who enjoyed benefits of a promotion as Senior Assistant can claim a higher pay scale retrospectively after retirement upon filing a belated representation.
Whether administrative authorities are justified in rejecting a request for higher pay scale on grounds of delay and estoppel.
Whether the writ petition filed to quash the rejection order for higher pay scale has merit.
SRI. VENKATARAMAIAH REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER CESCOM
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
