Allowed

Sri Chandrashekar Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2024WP/14944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Bill Collector from a merged gram panchayat seeks absorption into BBMP and consequential benefits. Court directs Principal Secretary to decide on absorption within eight weeks and orders BBMP to issue posting under Equal Pay for Equal Work within two weeks pending final absorption decision.

What did the court decide?

Principal Secretary directed to consider absorption proposal in eight weeks; Joint Commissioner directed to issue posting orders under Equal Pay for Equal Work in two weeks.

Sri Chandrashekar Hegde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:27071 WP No. 14944 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14944 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR HEGDE S/O SRI GANAPATHI HEGDE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 273, 2ND BLOCK KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, KAGGALIPURA BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560082

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.19 14:48:15 +0530

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

¶13

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560002 BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER

¶14

THE JOINTCOMMISSIONER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR URBAN DIVISION BBMP BENGALURU - 560098

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:27071 WP No. 14944 of 2024

¶17

KAGGALIPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT KAGGALIPUR BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560016 REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. M. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER TH E REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12.7.2023, 16.11.2023 AND 14.2.2024 COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-H, M AND N RESPECTIVELY ABSORB HIS SERVICES IN THE B B M P AND PAY HIM ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS SINCE THE DATE OF HIS REPORTING TO DUTY I.E., 16.11.2023 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner, who is admittedly employed as a

¶24

Bill Collector with the fourth respondent, has filed this petition for directions to the respondents to consider his different representations filed in the months commencing from July 2023 and pass appropriate orders for his absorption with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP] - the second

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:27071 WP No. 14944 of 2024

¶27

respondent - and pay all consequential benefits with effect from 16.11.2023.

¶28

It is undisputed that certain parts of

¶29

Kaggalipura Gram Panchayat is merged within the limits of BBMP and that the petitioner was in-charge as a Bill Collector for the panchayat for these areas. Consequent to such merger, the aforesaid Gram Panchayat has relieved the petitioner with effect from 10.11.2023 directing him to report to duty with the BBMP and to file a report about the same. The Joint Commissioner, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, BBMP, consequent to this Office Memorandum dated 10.11.2023, has written to the Panchayat Development Officer of the Gram Panchayat stating that

¶30

[i] the petitioner has reported to duty with his office on 16.11.2023, and

¶31

[ii] unless appropriate communication is addressed/permission is granted by the Department of Rural Development and

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27071 WP No. 14944 of 2024

¶33

Panchayat Raj for absorption, the petitioner’s services cannot be absorbed .

¶34

Sri. Manjunath K., the learned

¶35

counsel for the petitioner, relying upon these circumstances and also the Office Order dated 04.09.2023 [ Annexure-S ] issued by the concerned from Shettyhalli Sub-division, BBMP, submits that this Court must direct:

¶36

[a] the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj to consider the petitioner's grievance that orders for his absorption with the BBMP is pending for more than ten months, and

¶37

[b] the Commissioner, BBMP to assign work to the petitioner under its Equal Pay for Equal Work with necessary posting to enable payment of salary.

¶38

Sri. Manjunath K. submits that the petitioner,

¶39

though on permanent rolls of the fourth respondent, is denied the benefit of salary for over ten months.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27071 WP No. 14944 of 2024

¶41

Sri. Prince Isac, the learned Additional Government Advocate, and Sri. B.S.Srinivas, the learned counsel for Sri. B.L.Sanjeev, the learned counsel, who is on record for the BBMP, are heard. It is undisputed that the petitioner was on permanent rolls of the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent has relieved him with directions to report to BBMP as a consequence of merger of panchayat area within the BBMP, and the BBMP cannot absorb services unless there is necessary approval from the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj.

¶42

In the circumstances of the case it

¶43

cannot be gainsaid that a decision to absorb the petitioner’s services must be taken at the earliest. It is needless to observe that if there is any failure either by the Principal Secretary, Development of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj or any other Authority for appropriate decision on the petitioner's

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:27071 WP No. 14944 of 2024

¶45

absorption with the BBMP despite directions in this petition, the petitioner, apart from remedies available in law, will be entitled to every claim and privilege that he could claim in law.

¶46

However, subject to the decision on

¶47

the petitioner’s absorption, he must be assigned duty by the BBMP because, as could be seen from the concerned Communication, a proposal is placed before the Joint Commissioner, BBMP for posting the petitioner under Equal Pay for Equal Work and in similar situation, such arrangements have been made. The second respondent cannot await a decision by the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj to assign postings to the petitioner as a temporary measure under the aforesaid scheme. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:27071 WP No. 14944 of 2024

¶50

ORDER

¶51

[a] The petition is disposed of directing the Principal Secretary, the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj to consider the pending proposal for the petitioner's absorption with the BBMP within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in the light of the circumstances referred to above.

¶52

[b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶53

[c] The Joint Commissioner, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, BBMP is directed to issue posting orders to the petitioner in the light of the recommendations under Equal Pay for

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:27071 WP No. 14944 of 2024

¶55

Equal Work scheme subject to orders of absorption as aforesaid.

¶56

[d] The Joint Commissioner, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, BBMP shall issue orders for the petitioner's posting within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the Joint Commissioner, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, BBMP within a week from the date of receipt of such order.

¶57

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶58

Sri Chandrashekar Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chandrashekar Hegde 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

Bengaluru City Pourakarmika Gangmen Union Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Malathi B Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Sri. Terence Francis Vs State of Karnataka

A. N. Prasanna Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddartha Vs Union of India

Sri. Krishna Vs the Commissioner