Allowed

Sheshappa S/O. Vittobappa v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024WP/79644/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting a retired government employee's claim for an additional increment for passing a Kannada language examination. The Court held the order unsustainable as the administration failed to consider the petitioner's date of entry into service applicable to the relevant rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned endorsement quashed; Respondent No.1 directed to re-consider the claim within three months.

Sheshappa S/O. Vittobappa Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11302 WP No. 79644 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.79644 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SHESHAPPA S/O. VITTOBAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 62 YEARS, OCC: RTD. EMPLOYEE, R/O: BANASHANKARI NILAYA 1055, WARD NO. 35, NEAR CANAL BOUNDARY, ESHWAR NAGAR, AIR AREA, HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,

¶15

9^TH FLOOR, (DMA) VISHWESHWARAIAH, TOWER, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 01.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER, LOCAL AUDIT CIRCLE, BELLARY, TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.

¶17

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

THE STATE ACCOUNTS CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ACCOUNTS DEPT., BANGALORE – 01.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 16/05/2013, IN NO.POU NI:SIBBANDI:VYA:01:2012-13, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-H. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE AMOUNT WITHHELD BY THEM, WHICH WAS TO BE PAID TO THE PETITIONER AS ONE INCREMENT FOR PASSING KANNADA EXAMINATION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID RULES, ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 24% P.A AND ETC.,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11302 WP No. 79644 of 2013

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Challenging endorsement dated 16.05.2013 issued by respondent no.1 at Annexure-H and seeking for direction to respondents to release amount withheld on account of denial of one additional increment for having passed Kannada language examination, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Sri B.Sharanabasava, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner joined service as a clerk in year 1969 and retired from service in Town Municipal Council, Kampli on 30.06.2011. It was submitted, as per Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1974”), petitioner having passed SSLC examination with Kannada Language as an option, was entitled for one additional increment as per Rule 6 of Rules 1974. It was submitted, though Rule 6 was omitted with effect from 03.09.1987, petitioner having entered service while said Rule was in force, petitioner was entitled for benefit. It was

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11302 WP No. 79644 of 2013

¶27

submitted, paragraph no.6 of Circular bearing SiASuE 34 SeSeni 97 dated 03.11.2000 as per Annexure-C, would apply to petitioner. Further Gazette Notification dated 12.09.2001 as per Annexure-D clarified position in respect of employees entering service after 1987 and same would not apply to petitioner. Without proper consideration of above position, impugned endorsement was issued, same being illegal and arbitrary sought for quashing.

¶28

On other hand Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, as Rule 6 of Rules 1974, was omitted with effect from 03.09.1987, right to seek benefit under said Rule stood determined and therefore no indulgence was called for.

¶29

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶30

Bare perusal of endorsement at Annexure-H,

¶31

reveals that merely on account of deletion or omission of Rule 6 of Rules 1974, request of petitioner for additional

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11302 WP No. 79644 of 2013

¶34

increment for having passed Kannada Language Examination, is rejected. There is no consideration of fact that petitioner was in service from 1969.

¶35

Therefore on short ground that all relevant considerations were not taken into account, impugned endorsement would be unsustainable. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Endorsement dated 16.05.2023 is quashed. Respondent no.1 is directed to re-consider petitioner’s claim for additional increment for having passed Kannada Language Examination having regard to date of entry into service among other requirements as per Rules.

¶36

Re-consideration shall be within a period of three months from date of receipt of copy of this order and result thereof to be informed to petitioner forthwith.

¶37

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶38

EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Sheshappa S/O. Vittobappa v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheshappa S/O. Vittobappa v. the Commissioner

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

Laxmi Yallappa Sungar Vs the Director

Shri. Ellappa S/O Ummajappa Vs the Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation

Sri. Vedanth S/O v Sharanappa Yadavali Vs the Registrar-Secretary

Smt Laxmi Godalli Vs Manjunath S/O Kumarswamy

Shivaji S/O. Durgappa Angadi, Vs D a Ravishankar

Amjadhussain S/O Mohammadyunus Dafedar Vs Reshma W/O Amjadhussain Defedar