Dismissed

S M Srinivasa Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024WP/9136/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition seeking retrospective promotion from 2008. The court held that the petitioner could not claim promotion with effect from that date as the promoted private respondents were his seniors per a finalized seniority list prepared in 2008, which the petitioner had not challenged.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim for retrospective promotion was upheld.

S M Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26475-DB WP No. 9136 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 9136 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S M SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE A MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS SECRETARY GRADE-II, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, RAYALPADU, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563134. RESIDING AT SOMAYAJALAPALLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563138

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIVEK N., ADV. FOR SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY., ADV.)

¶11

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶14

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOLAR-563101

¶15

SRI. SHANKARAPPA GRAMA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY GRADE-II, BYRAGANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:26475-DB WP No. 9136 of 2024

¶18

SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563138

¶19

SRI. M KRISHNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY GRADE-II, LAKSHMISAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563138

¶20

SHRIRAMAREDDY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY GRADE-II, KARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BANGARPET TALUK,

¶21

KOLAR DISTRICT-563138

¶22

SRI. M KRISHNAPPA, GRAMA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY GRADE-II, VADAGUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563138.

¶23

SRI. M PRASAD, GRAMA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY GRADE-II, KALLUGUNTE AGRAHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R1.)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 31/05/2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.5074/2018 BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26475-DB WP No. 9136 of 2024

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prayer of the petitioner for retrospective promotion from 29.03.2008 has been rejected by Annexure-A10. Endorsement dated 09.01.2018. Challenging the same, the applicant had preferred Application No.5074/2018 before the Tribunal which has been rejected by the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 31.05.2021.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seniority list of bill collectors was prepared and published on 14.09.1999. The petitioner's name was shown above the private respondents No.3 to 7. However, it is stated that the private respondents were granted promotions as Gram Panchayat Secretary, Grade-

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26475-DB WP No. 9136 of 2024

¶36

II on 29.03.2008, while the said promotion was denied to the petitioner who was a senior in service. On these grounds, he had approached the Tribunal earlier filing Application No.2514/2010 where the Tribunal had directed the consideration of his claim for promotion with effect from 29.03.2008. However, the same had been rejected by Annexure-A10.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the Tribunal had held that it was since the applicant had not objected to the seniority list of bill collectors as on 29.02.2008, that the promotions had been granted to the private respondents. It was further held that 3 to 4 years is a reasonable period for challenging seniority and in a case where seniority is agitated beyond the period, he has to explain the delay in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation.

¶38

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was only the details with regard to the petitioner's service that had been verified by the petitioner and that he

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26475-DB WP No. 9136 of 2024

¶40

had omitted to take note of the details as regards respondents No.3 to 7 in the seniority list as on 29.02.2008. It submitted that he had not sought a revision of seniority but had only submitted a request for retrospective promotion with effect from the date on which the private respondents had been promoted. It is therefore contended that the said request ought to have been considered by the Tribunal.

¶41

The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the entire aspects of the matter had been considered in Annexure-10 which was the endorsement impugned before the Tribunal. It was specifically found that a draft seniority list was prepared in the year 2008 and had been circulated to all employees. The petitioner had signed and submitted a no objection certificate and had also withdrawn the objection submitted to the Zilla Panchayat with regard to the said seniority list. It is thereafter that the seniority list was finalised and promotions were made on 29.03.2008 from the said finalised seniority list.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:26475-DB WP No. 9136 of 2024

¶44

Thereafter, when the matter was being considered pursuant to the earlier direction of the Tribunal, the petitioner had been specifically required to produce his appointment order. But he had not responded to the same. It was on account of these facts that claim for retrospective promotion from 29.03.2008 as Gram Panchayat Secretary Grade-II had been rejected. It is submitted that even before the Tribunal, the petitioner had absolutely no explanation for not challenging the seniority list which was prepared in the year 2008 or the promotions granted to the private respondents on 29.03.2008. It is submitted that it was in the above circumstances that the application submitted by the petitioner had been rejected.

¶45

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the prayer raised before the Tribunal by the petitioner was for promotion to the post of Grade-II Gram Panchayat Secretary from 29.03.2008 from the date his juniors were so promoted and to refix his pay. We further

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:26475-DB WP No. 9136 of 2024

¶47

notice from the pleadings on record that in accordance with the seniority list prepared in the year 2008, the private respondents were clearly shown as senior to the petitioner and there was no question of the petitioner being overlooked for promotion by his juniors. In view of the fact that there was no challenge to the finalised seniority list which was prepared after calling for objections from all concerned in the year 2008, the petitioner could not have raised any claim for promotion with effect from 29.03.2008 since the persons promoted on 29.03.2008 were admittedly his seniors in accordance with the finalised seniority list.

¶48

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner cannot be found fault with, since there was no challenge raised to the settled final seniority list or the promotion granted on the basis of the same by the petitioner.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:26475-DB WP No. 9136 of 2024

¶51

The writ petition fails, the same is accordingly

¶52

dismissed.

¶53

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶54

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶55

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

S M Srinivasa Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S M Srinivasa Reddy 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 K G Hanumanthaiah, Vs Sri Yogesh

Smt. C. a. Damanyanthi Vs the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka

Ramachandran v Vs Union of India

The Karnataka Examination Authority Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Shivaprasad B S

The Government Tool Room and Training Centre Vs M/S Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Ltd.