Shri. Mahadeva Vs the Managing Director

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6727 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SHRI. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O SHRI LATE S. SIDDAIAH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.10, ASHA KIRAN LAYOUT 11^TH MAIN, 11^TH CROSS 1^ST STAGE, JNANABHARATHI NAGAR NPS PUBLIC SCHOOL, BANGALORE-560059 PERMANENTLY AT KADUKORHANAHALLI, MADDUR TQ., CA KERE HOBLI, MANDYA-571422 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. DILLI RAJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., BMTC COMPLEX, III FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶11

THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., BMTC COMPLEX, III FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION IN BMRCL/ADM/O&M/REC/2010/5256 DATED 14.09.2019, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (STATED AS RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) INSOFAR AS THE NON-GRANTING OF BACK-WAGES AND THE FIXATION OF PAY SCALE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged an Office Order bearing No.BMRCL/ADM/O&M/REC/2010/5256 dated 14.09.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 as regards not granting him the backwages and fixing his pay scale. He has also sought to quash the communications bearing even No. BMRCL/O&M/HR/PF/20373 dated 07.06.2021 and dated 18.10.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 to him. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to provide the backwages and consider his case for seniority and promotion.

¶20

The facts in brief are that the petitioner had joined the services of the respondent – Bangalore Metro Rail

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶22

Corporation Ltd. (‘BMRCL’ for short) on 27.01.2012 as a Maintainer [ET/EM/L&E/RS] at O and M Wing, Baiyyppanahalli. He was served with a show cause notice dated 27.11.2012 for non-disclosure of pendency of a criminal case in Crime No.119/2003 registered by K.M. Doddi Police Station and a charge sheet filed in C.C. No.836/2003 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC., Maddur. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply on 04.12.2012 to the respondent No.2 and after considering the same, the respondent No.2 terminated the petitioner from service in terms of an office order dated 12.12.2012. The petitioner challenged it before this Court in W.P. No.1013/2013 which was dismissed on 08.02.2013. Thereafter, he filed Writ Appeal No.3030/2013. The Division Bench of this Court in terms of the judgment dated 13.08.2019, allowed the said writ appeal and set aside the order of termination dated 12.12.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner herein within four weeks therefrom. Later, the respondents reinstated the petitioner into service on 14.09.2019. The petitioner reported to duty on 30.09.2019. By virtue of the office order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the

¶23

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶24

respondent No.2, his pay in the Maintainer Cadre was fixed at Rs.24,000/- in the minimum of the Maintainer pay scale of Rs.24,000-43,470. The petitioner submitted representations dated 18.12.2020 and 27.08.2021 to Deputy General Manager (HR), BMRCL and respondent No.1 respectively, to consider his seniority and promotion from the date of his initial appointment and to re-fix his pay scale and grant consequential benefits. However, the impugned office order and communications were issued by the respondent No.2 denying him seniority and promotion.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the above, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.3030/2013, had set aside the order of termination dated 12.12.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the same was contrary to the settled principles of law and reinstated the petitioner into service. He, therefore, contends that for all practical purposes, the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and his pay and allowances have to be determined by

¶27

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶28

taking the date of his entry into service. He contends that an employee, namely, Mr. Ambareesha B.G. who joined the respondent - BMRCL along with the petitioner is presently drawing gross salary of Rs.54,949/- and his net salary is a sum of Rs.39,784/-. He, therefore, contends that as a consequence of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.3030/2013, the petitioner is entitled to seniority and other incidents of service including enhanced pay and allowances.

¶29

The petition is opposed by the respondents, who contend that “it was informed to the petitioner that the effect of reinstatement would mean that his position in the seniority would be maintained giving him the benefit of continuity of service. However, the pay and other monetary benefits applicable to the petitioner has been given effect to from the date of his reinstatement to the post of Maintainer, as per the existing pay scale for the said post of Maintainer at the relevant point of time. Further, the petitioner was informed that his case for promotion would be considered as per the prescribed norms / rules governing the terms and conditions for promotion. Thus, the claim of the petitioner with regard to protecting the seniority and granting promotion, was

¶30

6 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶32

satisfactorily addressed vide Annexure-B letter dated 07-06-2021.”

¶33

An additional statement of objections is filed by the respondents contending that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court did not grant any backwages to the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to backwages and continuity of service, payment of salary, etc. It is also contended that the petitioner was gainfully employed between 12.12.2012 and 30.09.2019 at M/s. Blue Chip Insurance Broking Pvt. Limited and therefore, he is not entitled for salary for the above period.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondents seriously contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of backwages as Division Bench of this Court did not pass any orders to that effect. Besides, he contends that the petitioner was beneficially employed and therefore, he was not entitled to any backwages. This apart, he contends that the petitioner is not entitled to promotion to the next higher cadre as the petitioner is bound to comply with the Rules regarding promotion and also face qualifying examination for promotion.

¶35

7 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶37

Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is not entitled to promotion as a matter of right. However, in so far as the seniority of the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the seniority of the petitioner shall be maintained in accordance with the Seniority Rules prevalent in the respondent-BMRCL.

¶38

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶39

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶40

The petitioner was terminated from service in terms

¶41

of the office order passed by the respondent No.2 on 12.12.2012. The order of termination was set at naught by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.3030/2013 on 13.08.2019 and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. No doubt, the Division Bench of this Court did not pass any order regarding the backwages payable to the petitioner. Following the above directive, the respondents have reinstated the petitioner into service in terms of the office order issued by the respondent – BMRCL dated 14.09.2019. However, in so far as the pay and other benefits

¶42

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶43

attached to the post of the petitioner is concerned, it was determined as on the date of the petitioner reporting to duty i.e., 30.09.2019 pursuant to the order of reinstatement dated 14.09.2019 passed by the respondent - BMRCL and by virtue of the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Deputy General Manager, HR-I, O and M of BMRCL. If the order of termination of the petitioner was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.3030/2013, it is deemed that the petitioner’s service continued from the date of his appointment. Therefore, for the purpose of determining his pay and other benefits, it is the date of entry of the petitioner into service that had to be taken into account and not the date of his reporting to duty pursuant to the order of reinstatement. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to pay and other benefits by considering his date of entry into service. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for backwages and for promotion, the Division Bench of this Court did not grant any relief of recovery of backwages. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that he was beneficially employed from the day he was terminated from service till 30.09.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to backwages. In so far as the promotion of the petitioner is

¶44

9 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶46

concerned, if the Rules relating to promotion in the respondentBMRCL permit the petitioner to be promoted on he possessing the requisite number of years or seniority and if he passes any examination prescribed, he would be entitled to the benefit of such promotion. However, if there is provision in the Rules for automatic promotion to the next higher cadre by virtue of seniority of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of promotion. Since it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the seniority of the petitioner shall be maintained as per the prevalent Rules, no order is warranted in

¶47

this regard. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach this Court if his seniority is fixed adversely.

¶48

In view of the above, the following Order is passed:

¶49

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

¶50

(ii) The respondents are directed to re-fix the gross salary of the petitioner by taking his date of entry into service and after granting him all allowances and other benefits applicable to the post of a Maintainer.

¶51

(iii) The seniority of the petitioner shall be maintained by taking into account the

¶52

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶53

prevalent Rules in the respondent - BMRCL. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court if his seniority is fixed adversely.

¶54

(iv) If the petitioner is entitled to automatic promotion by virtue of completion of the prescribed years of service, he shall be entitled to it. However, if such promotion is determined by any qualifying service and/or any examination prescribed, the petitioner shall be promoted only after he possesses such qualification and passes such examination.

¶55

(v) The relief sought by the petitioner for recovery of backwages from the respondents is rejected.

¶56

In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2025 for

¶57

disposal does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.

¶58

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶59

SMA

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

¶61

11 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:12977 WP No. 6727 of 2022

¶63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SHRI. MAHADEVA VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER]

¶64

17.09.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶65

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶66

ORAL ORDER ON I.A.NO.2/2025

¶67

I.A.No.2/2025 is filed for clarification of the order dated

¶68

26.03.2025.

¶69

It is stated in the application that after the order dated 26.03.2025, the respondents have re-fixed the salary of the petitioner but have granted the monetary benefits with effect from 26.03.2025. He therefore contended that the order dated 26.03.2025 be clarified as to whether the petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary from the date of entry into service or whether he is entitled to monetary benefits from the date of the order.

¶70

As per the order dated 26.03.2025 this Court had directed the respondents to re-fix the gross salary of the petitioner, by taking his date of entry into service and after

¶71