Allowed

Sri. M. Rajendiran v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024WP/3954/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A dialysis technician denied time bond increment and automatic promotional increment on the basis of a 2013 joining date sought quashing of the rejecting endorsement. The court found his service was regularized retrospectively from 10.04.2006, held the endorsement unsustainable, quashed it, and directed grant of both increments with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 27.10.2022 quashed; respondents directed to grant ten-year time bond increment and fifteen-year automatic promotional increment counting service from 10.04.2006, with conseq

Sri. M. Rajendiran Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3954 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.M.RAJENDIRAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O N.MUNISWAMY PRESENTLY WORKING IN ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE MEDICAL

¶8

COLLEGE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON OOD BASIS DIALYSIS TECHNICIAN VICTORIA HOSPITAL CITY MARKET BENGALURU – 560 002

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.M.R.SHAILENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU – 560 023

¶14

THE DEAN AND DIRECTOR BENGALURU MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶15

¶16

AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (BMCRI) FORT KRISHNARAJENDRA ROAD BENGALURU

¶17

THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT VICTORIA HOSPITAL CITY MARKET

¶18

BENGALURU – 560 002

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 AND R.4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.BEM YV SAM SAM/C(3)/ 297/ 2016-17 DATED 27.10.2022 AT ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R.2 AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL, AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF TEN YEAR TIME BOND INCREMENT AND 15 YEAR AUTOMATIC PROMOTIONAL INCREMENT BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT 10.04.2006 AS THE DATE OF ENTRY OF THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, INCLUDING MONETARY BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶26

feeling aggrieved by endorsement bearing No.BemYVSam Sam/C(3)/297/2016-17 dated 27.10.2022 as per Annexure –D issued by respondent No.2 in rejecting claim of the petitioner for ten years Time Bond Increment and Automatic Promotional Increment for having completed 15 years of service without any promotion.

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

petitioner, learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶29

Respondent No.2 vide endorsement dated

¶30

27.10.2022 as per Annexure-D has declined to extend the

¶31

benefit of 10 years Time Bond Increment and 15 years Automatic Promotional Increment on the ground that petitioner has joined duty only on 12.06.2013 and therefore, petitioner would be eligible for 10 years time bond increment w.e.f. 12.06.2023.

¶32

¶33

It would be useful for this Court to examine the

¶34

order dated 31.10.2012, wherein petitioner and several others were regularized. The relevant portion of the Notification dated 31.10.2012 reads as under;

¶35

“ ¸PÁðg À z À Dz À Ã± É ¸ À AS À å; DP É ÄP À 141 JAJA¹ 2012, ¨ À AU É ¼ À Æg À Ä À ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31.10.2012.

¶36

¥æ¸ÁÛª À £ À Ai É Ä°è «ª À j¹g À Äª À CA± À U À ¼ À »£ À ß¯ É Ai É Ä°è ºÁU À Æ jmï À Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 26921/2011 ( S-RES) C/W WP Nos.23390-23391/2011 (S-REG) gÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiiÁ®Ai À Äª À Å ¢£ÁAP À 19.3.2012 g À Az À Ä ¤Ãrg À Äª À wÃ¦ð£ À £ À éAi À Ä À ²æÃ.n.r.¸Äg À ÃAz É æ£Áxï, ²æÃ.JA.gÁe À ÃAz É æ£ï ª À Äv À ÄÛ ²æÃ.P À .n.²æÃ¤ªÁ¸ï; É QjAiÄ q À Ai À iÁ°¹¸ï v À Av À ædÕg À Ä, «P À ÆÖÃjAi É iÁ D¸ À àv À æ, ¨ É AU É ¼ À Æg À Ä À Eªg À ¸ À Ãª É Ai É Ä£ À Äß ¢£ÁAP À 10.4.2006 jAz À eÁjU À §g É Äª À Av À É ¸PÁðj ¸ À Ãª É Ai É Ä°è SÁAi À ÄAU À Æ½¹ Dz É Ã²¹z É . É ”

¶37

On examining the above culled out endorsement,

¶38

it is clearly evident that petitioner along with two others was regularized w.e.f 10.04.2006. The endorsement issued by respondent No.2 runs contrary to the Notification culled out supra. Respondent No.2 could not have computed number of years of service by taking date of regularization as 11.07.2013. The Notification clearly

¶39

indicates that service of the petitioner is regularized with retrospective effect w.e.f. on 10.04.2006.

¶40

¶41

The time bond increment and automatic

¶42

promotional increment is denied on the ground that petitioner has not completed 15 years of service. If petitioner’s appointment is counted from 2006, then this

¶43

Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for ten years time bond increment as well as automatic promotional increment for having completed 15 years of service without any promotion and therefore, impugned endorsement is not sustainable.

¶44

This Court has to bear in mind that time bond increment and promotional increments serve multiple purposes including recognizing employees contribution, motivating performance and carrier growth.

¶45

If respondents have framed a scheme and there is a process in place to determine time bond increment, they are bound to count petitioner’s service w.e.f 10.04.2006 i.e., the date of regularization of the petitioner into service.

¶46

¶47

Petitioner having completed 10 years of service

¶48

w.e.f 10.04.2006 and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has put in 15 years of service without any promotion is also entitled for automatic promotional increment w.e.f 10.04.2021.

¶49

On examining records, this Court is more than satisfied that petitioner deserves to be compensated fairly

¶50

based on factors such as experience, performance and contribution. As such, materials on record clearly indicates that petitioner possesses a requisite eligibility to seek time bond increment as well as automatic promotional increment.

¶51

In the light of discussions made supra, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure – D is liable to be set-aside. Hence, the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶54

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 27.10.2022 as per Annexure-D

¶55

¶56

issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶57

(iii) The respondents are directed to grant the benefits of 10 year time bond increment and 15 year automatic promotional increment considering the date of regularization w.e.f. 10.04.2006 and grant all consequential benefits.

¶58

(iv) This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶59

(v) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

NBM

Sri. M. Rajendiran v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Rajendiran 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

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Vs Karavali Ayurvedic Medical College

Shivakumaraswamy B L Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Shivakumar T.R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Prof. Geetha C Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr S N Vasudevan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ganesh Vs the Secretary