Syed Shaheen Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Syed Shaheen Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure-'C') and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order; any amount legally due as claimed in the representation to be paid in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a retired BMTC driver, is entitled to re-fixation of his basic pay and BDA w.e.f. 01.04.2006 after completion of the punishment period, together with arrears, consequential benefits and terminal benefits.

Court's answer

Finding the petitioner's employment and continuous service undisputed, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the respondent-Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation at Annexure-'C', if not already considered.

Ratio / Principle

Any amount legally due to the petitioner, if not paid as claimed in the representation, will have to be paid by the respondent-Corporation in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Operative order: the petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure-'C') and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within three months from receipt of copy of the order.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), 18.09.2025, allowed W.P. No. 26733 of 2025 (S-KSRTC) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution by a retired BMTC driver (appointed 15.10.1988; retired on superannuation 31.10.2020 after 32 years and 16 days of service) who sought re-fixation of his basic pay and BDA w.e.f. 01.04.2006 after completion of the punishment period, with arrears, consequential and terminal benefits, his representation dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure-C) having gone unconsidered. Without adjudicating entitlement on merits, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (Divisional Controller, BMTC North Zone) to consider the representation and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within three months, and to pay any amount legally due as claimed therein.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:37460 WP No. 26733 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.26733 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SYED SHAHEEN S/O LATE SYED ABBAS AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. R/AT NO.102, BUILDING NO.81 SHIRKE APPARTMENT SATELLITE TOWN KENGERI

BENGALURU- 560 060

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU M C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR

BENGALURU - 560 027

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BMTC NORTH ZONE K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU -560 027

THE DEPOT MANAGER BMTC, DEPOT NO.9 14^TH CROSS , PEENYA 2^ND STAGE INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU -560 058

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA.,ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37460 WP No. 26733 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO REFLIX THE BASIC, DEARNESS ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITIONER FROM 01/04/2006 AFTER COMPLETION OF PUNISHMENT PERIOD AND PAY THE ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING TERMINAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation.

It is the case of petitioner that he was selected and appointed as a driver by the respondent - Corporation on 15.10.1988 and he was on probation w.e.f. 20.1.1990 and confirmed on 8.7.1992. Thereafter, he retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2020 and he had put in 32 years and 16 days unblemished service in the respondent - Corporation. It is further case of the petitioner that at the time of retirement, he was drawing basic pay of Rs.32,609/; BDA of Rs.5,604/- and DA of Rs.3,669/- per

month. After completion of 15 years of continued service, he

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37460 WP No. 26733 of 2025

HC-KAR

was granted selection grade for having worked in the initial grade of appointment without promotion w.e.f. 10.6.2008. However, while in service he was imposed number of minor punishments without his fault and in one of the punishment order, his annual increment was withheld for two years without cumulative effect and subsequently, two other punishments were imposed. It is also case of the petitioner that the BDA is not fixed on the basis of circulars/instructions/orders/guidelines issued by the Central Office and also there is less fixation of his basic pay, which resulted in financial loss to him.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation to the 3^rd respondent - Depot Manager as per Annexure-C on 28.10.2022 to re-fix his BDA w.e.f. 1.4.2006 after completion of the punishment period and also to re-fix his basic pay till the date of retirement as mentioned in the representation and so also pay the arrears of salary and the terminal benefits. The representation so made by the petitioner was not considered and due to the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37460 WP No. 26733 of 2025

HC-KAR

It is the contention of learned counsel that there is no

dispute with regard to the petitioner being employed with the respondent - Corporation and in view of non-fixation of the BDA and basic pay properly, the petitioner is entitled for re-fixation of his basic pay and BDA as claimed in the representation at Annexure-C. Hence, the petition requires to be allowed based on the representation made by the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned counsel - Smt. H.R. Renuka appearing for the respondent - Corporation submits that all the payments due to the petitioner has already been paid and the question of re-fixation does not arise. She further contends that in case any of the amount, which is due to the petitioner is not paid as claimed in the representation made by the petitioner, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied if the respondent - Corporation considers his representation at Annexure-C to re-fix his BDA and basic pay and pass orders. The said submission is noted and accepted.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37460 WP No. 26733 of 2025

HC-KAR

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, it is

not in dispute that petitioner was employed in the respondent - Corporation and has put in continuous service for the period mentioned supra and this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent - Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner at Annexure - 'C', if already not considered and in case any of the amount, which is legally due to the petitioner is not paid as claimed in the representation, the same will have to be paid by the respondent - Corporation, in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

O R D E R

i) The petition is allowed .

ii) The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2022 vide Annexure - 'C' and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18