Allowed

B.V. Veena v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/17382/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by promoted Assistant Revenue Officers. The petitioners alleged non-consideration of representation for postings following a promotion order. The Court directed the respondent to consider the representation and provide suitable postings within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 14.06.2024 and provide suitable postings within one month.

B.V. Veena Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36027 WP No. 17382 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17382 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B.V. VEENA W/O PRABHU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER VASANTHNAGAR SUB-DIVISION, THIMMAIAH ROAD, BBMP BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶8

T. SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER CITIZEN SERVICE CENTER

¶9

RPC LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560104

¶10

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

VENKATESH S.N. S/O LATE S. NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER CITIZEN SERVICE CENTER BBMP, BENGLAURU-560068

¶12

V. MANJUNATH S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER ADDITIONAL DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36027 WP No. 17382 of 2024

¶14

(CENTRAL) N.R. SQUARE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560001

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING

¶19

BANGALORE-560001

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRINCE ISAAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶23

SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER GIVEN ON 14.06.2024 I.E. ANNEXURE-D TO WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE POSTINGS TO THE PETITIONERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 28.07.2023 WITH RETROSPECTIVE AFFECT AND ALSO

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36027 WP No. 17382 of 2024

¶26

OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL FLOWING FROM THE PROMOTION ORDER.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to consider their representation dated 14.06.2024 and consequently, to direct the respondents to give postings to them in compliance with the promotion order dated 28.07.2023.

¶31

The petitioners claim that they are working as Assistant Revenue Officers and were promoted as Assistant Commissioners (Zones) vide order dated 28.07.2023. The petitioners contend that even after 11 months from the date of the order of promotion, they were not given postings. The petitioners therefore, submitted representation to the respondent No.1. However, the said representation was not considered. The petitioners are therefore, before this Court seeking for an appropriate direction.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:36027 WP No. 17382 of 2024

¶34

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶35

submitted that the representation of the petitioners, if in order, shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶36

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 14.06.2024 and provide them suitable postings, in accordance with law. This shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶39

PMR

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

B.V. Veena v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.V. Veena v. 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

Dr Nisarga v Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri. Govindaraju a Vs Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation

Sri Maliyappa Talawar Vs the Managing Director

G Shivananda Vs the Principal/Chairman

Ramappa Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Prakash M Dhareshwara Vs the State of Karnataka