Writ petition challenging an endorsement denying increment arrears due to service entry dates being revised from 1993 to 1995 pursuant to earlier court orders quashing the original appointment due to roster violations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:31888 WP No. 9239 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 9239 OF 2023 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SOMA SUNDER RAO R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RENUKA H R., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETTITION. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED:13.05.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CALCULATE AND PAY THE INCREMENT ARREARS THAT ACCRUES TO THE PETITIONERS BY VIRTUE OF REFIXATION OF THEIR PROBATIONARY AND CONFIRMATION DATES AND THE CONSEQUENT FIXATION OF THEIR BASIC PAY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court questioning the endorsement dated 07.12.2021 at Annexure-K issued by
NC: 2024:KHC:31888 WP No. 9239 of 2023
the respondent No.3 declining to pay arrears of wages as claimed by the petitioners.
grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits endorsement issued at Annexure-K is unsustainable as reasons assigned therein is contrary to records. He submits that petitioners were admitted to service in the
NC: 2024:KHC:31888 WP No. 9239 of 2023
year 1993 there is no question of their admission to service being in the year 1995. He submits respondents without giving any cogent reasons has reckoned the date of service of entry into service from the year 1995 depriving the service benefits in the nature of increment to the petitioners between the years 1993 and 1995 and that the petitioners have also been deprived of revision in their pay. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
said writ petition. She submits, in furtherance to the said order, the respondent -corporation reworked the entire list and notified fresh list on 18.11.2011. That while doing so some of the employees including the petitioners were not fitting into the post while following and applying the roster system. However, since petitioners had already rendered services they were posted in additional list. Accordingly in the notification published on 18.11.2011 as per Annexure-A date of appointment of the petitioners was changed from the year 1993 to the year 1995. As such though the petitioners had entered into service in the year 1993 in view of the intervening circumstances which arose pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition referred to above, petitioners entry into service was considered from the year 1995 and not from the year 1993. Thus, she submits that the impugned endorsement is issued for the reasons which are justified and she also relies upon the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.6604/2016 on 15.12.2020 in the case
of Gurappa C Karjagi Vs The Chief Personal Manager,
BMTC and anr . Referring to the said order, learned counsel submits that identical issue was raised and this Court had declined to entertain the same in view of the earlier orders that was passed by this Court in W.P.No.10414/2006. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition on similar lines.
to be considered within roster points. Accordingly the
notification at Annexure-A dated 18.11.2011 came to be issued by virtue of which dates of appointment of the petitioners were changed from the year 1993 to year 1995. Identical aspect of the matter having been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6604/2016 on 15.12.2020 as noted above, this
Court do not see any ground to interfere in this matter. Besides, reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement are in conformity with the documents relied upon by the respondent-corporation which came into existence in pursuance to the order passed in W.P.No.10414/2006. In that view of the matter petition lacks merit and same is dismissed.
Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE
SBN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pension and retirement benefits can be recalculated after service dates were altered in pursuance to earlier court orders.
Whether the endorsement declining to pay arrears of increment is sustainable in light of intervening orders modifying appointment dates.
Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to consider service from 1993 vs 1995 dates revised by previous judgments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurappa C Karjagi Vs The Chief Personal Manager, BMTC and anrDistinguished¶39
W.P.No.6604/2016 on 15.12.2020
Gurappa C Karjagi Vs The Chief Personal Manager, BMTC and anrReferred¶46
W.P.No.6604/2016 on 15.12.2020
Sri. Nagaraju. M.K.
Suresh S.
The Managing Director, B.M.T.C.
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
