Sri. M. Siddalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. M. Siddalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2022 (Annexure-E) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from receipt of a copy of the order; no opinion expressed on merits and restoration of increments/arrears not adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent is to be directed (by mandamus) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2022 (Annexure-E) seeking restoration of the two annual increments withheld by order dated 12.05.2011, together with arrears. +1 more

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation vide Annexure-E dated 21.05.2022 in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The consideration of the representation is to be completed as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.), W.P. No. 13000 of 2022 (S-RES), oral order dated 04-09-2025, filed under Articles 226 & 227, Constitution of India. Petitioner M. Siddalingaiah, workman category I in respondent-2 Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd., was penalised by order dated 12.05.2011 (Annexure-A) with reduction/withholding of two annual increments after departmental enquiry. Identical punishment had been imposed on similarly situated employees (Annexure-C, 29.11.2004) and was restored in their favour vide Annexure-D dated 17.05.2019 without any appeal or challenge; the petitioner therefore sought like restoration with arrears through representation dated 21.05.2022 (Annexure-E), on which no order was passed. Counsel for respondent-2 undertook to consider the representation if allowed reasonable time. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing respondent-2 to consider the representation in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from receipt of a copy of the order. No precedent cited; no quantum adjudicated; actual restoration left open.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34927 WP No. 13000 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13000 OF 2022 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M. SIDDALINGAIAH S/O. LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO. 8, 6TH C CROSS KEMPEGOWDANAGARA T. DASARAHALLI, TUMUKURU ROAD BENGALURU-560 087.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUNDARESH H C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

MANAGING DIRECTOR

KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, HALASURU,BANGALORE-560 042.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1: SRI D NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED:21.5.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND TO RESTORE THE

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34927 WP No. 13000 of 2022

HC-KAR

WITHHOLDING OF TWO ANNUAL INCREMENTS OF THE PETITIONER AS PER THE ORDER DATED:12.5.2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETING THE PERIOD ALONG WITH ARREARS AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of

the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner dated 21.05.2022 as per Annexure-E to restore the withholding two annual increments of the petitioner as per the order dated 12.05.2011 immediately after completing the period along with arrears as per Annexure-A.”

The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as workman category I in the second respondent - Corporation. While he was in service, a departmental enquiry has been initiated vide Annexure-A dated 12.05.2011 and penalty of reduction of two

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34927 WP No. 13000 of 2022

HC-KAR

increments has been imposed. The further case of the petitioner is that, in respect of similarly situated employees, vide Annexure-C dated 29.11.2004 similar punishment has been imposed withholding two increments. Later, without filing any appeal or challenging that order, vide Annexure-D, dated 17.05.2019, that has been restored. Therefore, the petitioner also submitted a representation vide Annexure-E dated 21.05.2022, seeking the very same relief. Since no order has been passed, the petitioner is before this court.

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that, if this court grants some reasonable time, the representation submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-E dated 21.05.2022 would be considered in accordance with law.

In view of the above, without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34927 WP No. 13000 of 2022

HC-KAR

the representation vide Annexure-E dated 21.05.2022, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

CM

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39