Disposed

Sri Anantha Servegara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WP/14836/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A municipal employee disputed being shown as an Attender rather than a Bill Collector in a departmental order. With respondents agreeing his promotion could be approved if the State concurred, the court disposed of the petition directing timelines for filing documents, forwarding recommendations and State decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions for document submission, forwarding and State decision on promotion approval by 31.12.2024.

Sri Anantha Servegara Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20348 WP No. 14836 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14836 OF 2018 (S-PRO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ANANTHA SERVEGARA S/O MANJUNATHA SERVEGARA WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR, AT TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AT KAUP UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 106

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOUREESH S. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMACHANDRA G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIKASA SOUDHA,

¶13

DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR,VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20348 WP No. 14836 of 2018

¶16

THE JOINT DIRECTOR

¶17

THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR,VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,

¶18

BANGALORE-560 001

¶19

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT,UDUPI RAJATHADRI,C BLOCK, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX

¶20

AT MANIPAL,UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 104

¶21

THE PLANNING OFFICER THE DISTRICT PLANNING CELL, ZILLA PANCHAYATH,UDUPI RAJATHADRI,C BLOCK, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, AT MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 104

¶22

THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

¶23

AT KAUP,

¶24

UDUPI TALUK

¶25

UDUPI DISTRICT- 574 106

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R3;

¶28

SRI. ASHOK N NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R4;

¶29

SRI. S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

¶30

SRI. SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶31

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 09.08.2016, PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-C TO THE W.P. IN SO FAR AS IT

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20348 WP No. 14836 of 2018

¶33

RELATES TO THE PETITIONER IN NOT RECOGNISING HIM AS BILL COLLECTOR; QUASH THE ORDER DTD 3.10.2017, PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-D3; DIRECT THE R-4 TO ISSUE A SEPARATE ORDER APPROVING THE PROMOTION OF THE PETITIONER AS BILL COLLECTOR WITH EFFECT FROM 29.12.2012, IF IT IS FOUND NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Sri. S. Mahesh, a learned standing counsel is permitted to take notice for the fifth respondent. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been in employment with the sixth respondent, which is now upgraded as a City Municipal Council, and the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-C dated 09.08.2016 only because he is shown as working as an Attender. According to the petitioner, as canvassed by his learned counsel, Sri. Goureesh S. Goudar, the petitioner ought to have been shown as a Bill Collector . In fact, to justify his case, certain additional documents have now been filed.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:20348 WP No. 14836 of 2018

¶39

It is stated by Sri. S. Mahesh and Sri. Ashok N. Nayak, the learned counsels for the fourth and the fifth respondents, that the petitioner's grievance, if any, will have to be considered by the State Government in the light of the sixth respondent's response. Sri. Naveen Chandrashekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, and Sri. Shyam Koundinya A.S., the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, are heard in the light of the petitioner's grievance and the afore submission.

¶40

In fact, Sri. Shyam Koundinya A.S. submits that if the State Government approves the petitioner's position as a Bill Collector, the sixth respondent cannot have a grievance, and when queried, the learned counsel submits that his instructions are that the petitioner could be entitled for such promotion.

¶41

Sri. Naveen Chandrashekar submits that

¶42

with these submissions now being brought on record,

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20348 WP No. 14836 of 2018

¶44

reasonable time may be granted to the second respondent - Directorate of Municipal Administration - to consider the petitioner's request for approval of promotion from the post of Attender to the post of Bill Collector, and the second respondent shall consider the same in the light of the additional documents now relied upon by the petitioner provided the same are sent to proper channels by the sixth respondent. In rejoinder, Sri. Goureesh S. Goudar submits that copies of the additional documents along with certified copy of this Court's order would be filed with the sixth respondent for forwarding the same to the second respondent. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

a) The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file with the sixth respondent a certified copy of this order and the additional documents, and the petitioner shall

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20348 WP No. 14836 of 2018

¶48

file these documents within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶49

b) If the petitioner, in exercise of this opportunity, files documents as aforesaid with the sixth respondent, the sixth respondent shall ensure that appropriate communication along with the documents are forwarded to the second respondent.

¶50

This shall be achieved within six weeks.

¶51

c) The second respondent, if recommendation from the sixth respondent is received accordingly, shall take appropriate decision and communicate the same to both the petitioner and the sixth respondent at the earliest, and in any event on

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:20348 WP No. 14836 of 2018

¶54

or before 31.12.2024, if both the petitioner and the sixth respondent comply within the timelines now indicated.

¶55

SD/JUDGE

¶56

Sri Anantha Servegara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anantha Servegara 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 M v Muniyappa Vs Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary

Smt. Anjinamma Vs State of Karnataka

A.N. Narasimhaiah Vs Executive Officer

Niranjan B K Vs the Karnataka Residential

A R Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

V R Srinivas Vs Karnataka Grameen Bank