Allowed¶41

Shivayogi S/O Anand Rao Bennur v. the District and Sessions Judge

Service law – Stagnation increment

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2025WP/108472/2017

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stagnation increment denial; annual performance report; 'average' rating not an adverse remark; uncommunicated APR 2014-2015; no reasons recorded for downgrade; Shirestedar; District and Sessions Judge, Haveri; Chief Administrative Officer; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; coordinate bench W.P.No.64656/2011 relied upon; service law; writ petition allowed; order set aside; consequential benefits; compliance in three months; R. Nataraj, J.; 07-03-2025.

What did the court decide?

Grant of the stagnation increment payable to the petitioner together with all consequential benefits in accordance with law, to be complied with within three months from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶41

Shivayogi S/O Anand Rao Bennur Vs the District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 was justified in refusing the petitioner's application for grant of stagnation increment for the year 2016 on the basis of the 'average' rating recorded for 2014-2015. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

The annual performance report gave no basis for treating the petitioner's track record as 'average', and therefore the respondents were not justified in not granting the stagnation increment payable to the petitioner.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

An 'average' rating recorded in the annual performance report for 2014-2015 does not amount to an adverse remark and does not act as a disqualification for the petitioner.

¶37

Key takeaways

Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; respondents directed to grant the stagnation increment with all consequential benefits in accordance with law, compliance within three months.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Stagnation increment - Refusal by District and Sessions Judge, Haveri vide order No.Administration:254/2016 dated 28.01.2016 on the ground that the retired Shirestedar petitioner's annual performance report (APR) for 2014-2015 was 'average', though his APRs for 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 were rated 'good'; the 'average' APR was never communicated to him - Held: an 'average' grading is not an adverse remark and does not act as a disqualification; nothing was stated in the APR as to how or why the petitioner's track record was downgraded to 'average'; consistent with the coordinate bench ruling in W.P.No.64656/2011 that an employee with decades of service and prior good ratings cannot be downgraded to an average performer without the assessing authority specifying the basis and areas of improvement - Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; respondents directed to grant stagnation increment with all consequential benefits in accordance with law within three months. (R. Nataraj, J., Dharwad Bench, 07-03-2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 108472 OF 2017 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVAYOGI S/O. ANAND RAO BENNUR AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED SHIRESTEDAR, R/O: MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER THE DISTRICT And SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 28.01.2016 BRG.NO.ADMINISTRATION:254/2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.Administration:254/2016 dated 28.01.2016 in terms of which, his application for grant of stagnation increment was refused during the year 2016.

¶24

The petitioner contends that he was working as a Shirestedar at the office of the respondent No.1. He contends that he was eligible for stagnation increment during the year 2016 and therefore made a request for grant of increment. The Administrative Shirestedar of respondent No.1 submitted a representation stating that the annual performance report of the petitioner for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 were 'good', whereas, the annual performance report for the year 2014-2015 was 'average' and recommended for rejection of petitioner's application for grant of stagnation increment. Based on the same, the respondent No.1 passed an

¶25

order denying the stagnation increment. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 communicated the rejection on 28.01.2016.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017

¶27

He contends that the annual performance report for the year 2014-2015 was not communicated to him and therefore, he had no opportunity to challenge the same. He contends that he had a very good performance rating in the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and there was no justification in granting an average rating during the year 2014-2015.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the stagnation increment as there were no promotional avenues available and the performance report for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 showed that the petitioner was eligible to be promoted. However, in so far as the annual performance report for the year 2014-2015, the rating was reduced to 'average' and he was not notified for the same. He contends that if the petitioner was notified of the reduced rating in the annual performance report for the year 2014-15, he would have taken appropriate steps for rectification of annual performance report. He contends that a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.64656/2011 had held that the performance recorded as average in the annual performance

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017

¶31

report is not adverse in nature and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of stagnation increment.

¶32

The learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶33

the respondents submitted that the stagnation increment is granted only in cases where a candidate is eligible to be promoted, but there are no vacancies. He contends that the rating of the performance of the candidate for the past 05 years, would be taken into consideration for grant of stagnation increment. He contends that in case of the petitioner his performance for the year 2014-2015, was recorded as "average" in the annual performance report and therefore, he was not entitled for stagnation increment.

¶34

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶35

It is seen from the annual performance of the petitioner for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 that his performance was rated as 'good' by the respondent No.1. However for the year 2014-2015, the performance is reduced to 'average'. However this does not

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017

¶37

amount to an adverse remark, as it does not act as a disqualification for the petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.64656/2011 held that a person who had worked in the department for several decades and who had a good rating in the previous years, cannot be downgraded to an average performer. It was also held that the authority assessing the performance of a candidate, has to specify the basis for arriving at the rating of average and also spell out the areas in which the candidate has to improve.

¶38

In the case on hand, except stating that the performance of the petitioner during the year 2014-2015 was 'average', nothing was mentioned in the annual performance report as to how and why the track record of the petitioner was treated as 'average'.

¶39

In that view of the matter, the respondents were not justified in not granting the stagnation increment payable to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondents in denying the stagnation increment to the petitioner is set aside.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017

¶41

The respondents are directed to grant the stagnation increment payable to the petitioner and consequently grant all consequential benefits in accordance with law. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Sd/(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶43

¶44

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 18

Shivayogi S/O Anand Rao Bennur v. the District and Sessions Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivayogi S/O Anand Rao Bennur v. the District and Sessions Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jakkawwa @ Ratnabai Vs Mahadevi W/O Babu Tadalagi

Kashirao S/O. Chandra Rao Bhanji and Ors. Vs Venkatreddy S/O Ayalreddy and Ors.

Nagamma W/O Sidramappa Biradar, Since Deceased through Lrs., Shardabai Vs Sangappa S/O Sidramappa Biradar

Sri.N.B.Marathe, Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Premkumar Vs the Principal District and Session and Anr.

Ramesh Rao Vs the Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka