M.Krishna v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2025WP/54272/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coir Board employee promotion; sealed cover procedure; Departmental Promotion Committee; censure set aside in W.P.No.37042/2015 (order dated 11.09.2018); writ appeal W.A.No.151/2019 pending; mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; promotion to Manager Grade-I/Deputy Director with effect from 01.04.2003; representation dated 07.12.2011 (Annexure-E); seniority, pay fixation and salary arrears prayed; direction to open sealed cover within three months subject to writ appeal outcome; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; Justice R. Nataraj; service matter (S-RES); disposed 03.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to open the sealed cover and grant promotion to the petitioner within three months from receipt of a copy of the order, any such promotion being subject to the outcome of W.A.No.151/2019.

M.Krishna Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9026 WP No. 54272 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 54272 OF 2014 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M. KRISHNA S/O MARIMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER GR-1 COIR BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3a, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PEENYA IST STAGE, ANDRAHALLI MAIN RD, KALIKA NAGAR, RAGAVENDRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 058, AND RESIDING AT FLAT NO.TF-02, MALLIKA APARTMENTS, 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, 5^TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 095.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES L-BLOCK, OPP HALDIRAM, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶13

THE COIR BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9026 WP No. 54272 of 2014

¶15

MAHATMA GANDHI RD, KOCHI, KERALA-682016.

¶16

THE CHAIRMAN, COIR BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, KOCHI, KERALA-682016.

¶17

SRI. ANANDABABU S/O A. KUTTY KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED ABOUOT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR, COIR BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, MAHATMA GANDHI RD, KOCHI, KERALA-682016.

¶18

SRI. V. BABU, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SFURTI) COIR BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, MAHATMA GANDHI RD, KOCHI, KERALA-682016.

¶19

SRI A.C. JOSE, AGE: MAJOR THE THEN CHAIRMAN, COIR BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, MAHATMA GANDHI RD, KOCHI, KERALA-682016.

¶20

SRI. J. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGE: MAJOR, FORMER CHAIRMAN, COIR BOARD, R/O ERIMAUR POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678001.

¶21

SRI. M. KUMARARAJA, AGE: MAJOR, SECRETARY, COIR BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, MAHATMA GANDHI RD,

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9026 WP No. 54272 of 2014

¶23

KOCHI, KERALA-682016.

¶24

PROF. G. BALACHANDRAN, AGE: MAJOR FORMER CHAIRMAN, COIR BOARD, CONVENT SQUARE, ALLAPUZHA-688012.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. UNNIKRIHSNAN, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;

¶27

SRI. K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.5, 8 AND 9;

¶28

VIDE ORDER DATED 28.06.2016, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF MANAGER GRADEI/DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL DATED 07.12.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND GRANT HIM ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, SUCH AS SENIORITY, FIXATION OF PAY AND ARREARS OF SALARY FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE SAID PROMOTION IS DUE TO HIM.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9026 WP No. 54272 of 2014

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Manager Grade-1/Deputy Director by disposing of his representation.

¶35

(i) The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent No.3 as a Lower Division Clerk with effect from December, 1996. He was thereafter, promoted to the post of Manager Grade-III during the month of December, 1990 and Manager Grade-II during the month of February, 1996. He was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director or to the cadre of Manager Grade-I. However, the petitioner alleges that in order to grant benefit to certain others, his promotion was withheld. He contends that he was promoted to the post of Manager Grade-I during the month of August, 2011, though, he was entitled to be promoted with effect from 01.04.2003. He contends that in order to deprive the promotion with effect from 01.04.2003, he was implicated in a departmental proceedings and was placed on suspension. The order of suspension was later on revoked. The respondent

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9026 WP No. 54272 of 2014

¶37

No.2 issued a charge memo. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was slapped with an order of censure.

¶38

(ii) The petitioner contends that in the meanwhile, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of the petitioner and adopted a sealed cover procedure. The petitioner contends that the said order was challenged in W.P.No.37042/2015. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2018, set aside the order of censure and directed the consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 07.12.2011 for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Manager Grade-I, with effect from 01.04.2003.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner contends that the said representation is not considered till date and therefore, seeks for an appropriate direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation, in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.37042/2015.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶41

submits that the order dated 11.09.2018 passed in

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:9026 WP No. 54272 of 2014

¶44

W.P.No.37042/2015 is pending consideration in

¶45

W.A.No.151/2019. Therefore, he submits that the case of the petitioner would be considered after disposal of the writ appeal.

¶46

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as leaned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶47

This Court in W.P.No.37042/2015 had set aside the order of censure imposed upon the petitioner. The Departmental Promotion Committee had found the petitioner eligible to be promoted to the post of Manager Grade-I and therefore, had adopted the sealed cover procedure. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.37042/2015 had directed the consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion without looking into the penalty of censure vide order dated 13.07.2011.

¶48

In that view of the matter, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are bound to open the sealed cover and grant the promotion to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:9026 WP No. 54272 of 2014

¶51

to mention that any promotion that may be granted to the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of W.A.No.151/2019.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed off on the above

¶53

terms.

¶54

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶55

BKN

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Failure/non-consideration by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the petitioner's representation/appeal dated 07.12.2011 (Annexure-E) seeking promotion to Manager Grade-I with effect from 01.04.2003; petitioner sought mandamus for its disposal.¶¶39
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Union of India / Coir Board) · 07.12.2011
Prior proceeding
Petitioner joined the services of respondent No.3 (Coir Board) as a Lower Division Clerk with effect from December, 1996.¶¶35
Prior proceeding
As printed, petitioner was thereafter promoted to Manager Grade-III during December, 1990 and Manager Grade-II during February, 1996 (dates as printed; internally inconsistent with the stated 1996 joining).¶¶35
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was eligible for promotion to Deputy Director / Manager Grade-I; alleges promotion was withheld to benefit others; contends he was promoted to Manager Grade-I in August, 2011 though entitled from 01.04.2003.¶¶35
Prior proceeding
Petitioner alleges he was implicated in departmental proceedings and placed under suspension to deprive him of promotion from 01.04.2003; the suspension was later revoked.¶¶35
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 issued a charge memo; enquiry was conducted; petitioner was punished with an order of censure.¶¶37
Prior proceeding
Departmental Promotion Committee considered the petitioner's case and adopted sealed cover procedure.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Sealed-cover/censure order challenged in W.P.No.37042/2015; Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2018 set aside the censure and directed consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted representation dated 07.12.2011 for consideration of his case for promotion to Manager Grade-I with effect from 01.04.2003.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Representation not considered till date; petitioner sought direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider it in light of the order in W.P.No.37042/2015.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
Recital: DPC had found petitioner eligible for Manager Grade-I and adopted sealed cover; Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.37042/2015 directed consideration without looking into the penalty of censure vide order dated 13.07.2011 (date as printed; conflicts with 11.09.2018 in ¶38).¶¶47
Prior proceeding
Respondents submit that the order dated 11.09.2018 in W.P.No.37042/2015 is pending consideration in W.A.No.151/2019; petitioner's case would be considered after disposal of the writ appeal.¶¶45

M.Krishna v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Krishna v. the Union of India

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

Sri K Channabasavaiah Vs Sri K a Ramanjanappa

S Suresh Vs Smt Rajitha R

Kalasaiah Vs Harish

Sri Kumara N Vs the State of Karnataka

C.Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr Krishna Raj Vs State of Karnataka