Sri Gangi Reddy K M Vs the State of Karnataka

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9^TH FLOOR, VISVESHWARAIAH MAIN TOWER, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560001

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANAHALLI - 56

¶25

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR

¶26

DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANAHALLI - 56

¶27

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

¶28

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOSAKOTE,

¶29

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562114 …RESPONDENTS

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:41563 WP No. 7631 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

(BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 R4 SERVED

¶34

SRI. KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO.1197957/DMA/EST2/ENG/99/2023/6655 DTD 08.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-AL AND SET ASIDE THE SAME BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE SAID IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED , UNSUSTAINABLE AND CONTRARY TO RULES AND ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT , ORDER OR DIRECTION MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 20.11.2023 VIDE ANNX-AK OF THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE DUE SALARY TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FORM 01.12.2015 TO 10.11.2016 FOR HAVING WORKED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER IN THE OFFICE OF THE R5 ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF ITS DUE TILL SUCH PAYMENT TO THE PETITIONER AND TO EXTEND THE ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ARISING THERETO.

¶36

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

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:41563 WP No. 7631 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

This writ petition is filed seeking for the following

¶43

reliefs:

¶44

"a) Call for records pertaining to the impugned Endorsement No. 1197957/DMA/EST2/ENG/99/2023/ 6655 dated 08.01.2024 vide ANNEXURE-AL and set aside the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari to quash the said impugned Endorsement by considering the same as arbitrary, illegal, unjustified, unsustainable and contrary to rules and issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to consider the representation dated 20.11.2023 vide Annexure-AK of the Petitioner to pay the due salary to the Petitioner for the period from 01.12.2015 to 10.11.2016 for having worked as a Junior Engineer in the office of the 5th Respondent alongwith interest at 12% p.a. from the date of its due till such payment to the Petitioner and to extend the all consequential benefits arising thereto; and,

¶45

b) Pass such other orders or issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41563 WP No. 7631 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶49

2.1. The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer

¶50

in the Office of respondent No.5. He was transferred from the said Office to the Office of Town Municipality, Kolar as per official memorandum date 02.05.2015 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner is a Junior Engineer, a Group-C post and he cannot hand over the charge of his post on transfer without receiving order from his higher authority i.e., respondent No.5. The petitioner submitted a representation on 08.05.2015 to respondent No.5 with a request to relieve him from the Office of respondent No.5. Respondent No.5, instead of relieving the petitioner, made

¶51

the petitioner to continue to work as a Junior Engineer in the Office of respondent No.5 and he was relieved on 10.11.2016. The petitioner was not paid salary from 01.12.2015 to 10.11.2016. The petitioner submitted the several representations to respondents No2 to 5 with a

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41563 WP No. 7631 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

request to pay his salary due. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 08.01.2024 issued by respondent No.2, filed this writ petition.

¶55

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for State and learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

¶57

the petitioner was transferred vide transfer order dated 02.05.2015. The petitioner has submitted a representation on 08.05.2015 to relieve him from the post of Junior Engineer. Respondent No.5 did not relieve the petitioner and respondent No.5 allowed the petitioner to continue to work as a Junior Engineer till 10.11.2016 and respondent No.5 has relieved the petitioner on 10.11.2016.

¶58

Respondent No.5 had extracted the work from the petitioner from 01.12.2015 to 10.11.2016, but respondent No.5 refused to pay the salary. He submits that, the

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41563 WP No. 7631 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

petitioner is entitled for salary from 01.12.2015 to 10.11.2016. The endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶62

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that, the petitioner was transferred on 02.05.2015. The petitioner did not join transferred place. He continued to work in respondent No.5-Office. The petitioner is not entitled for salary from 01.12.2015 to 10.11.2016. He submits that, respondent No.5 intimated respondent No.2 as per Annexure-AF. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismisss the writ petition.

¶63

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶64

There is no dispute that the petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in respondent No.5-Office. He was transferred as per the official memorandum dated 02.05.2015. The petitioner has submitted a representation

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41563 WP No. 7631 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

to respondent No.5 vide Annexure-F on 08.05.2015 requesting respondent No.5 to relieve him from the post of Junior Engineer in the Office of respondent No.5. Respondent No.5, instead of relieving the petitioner, had allowed the petitioner to continue work in the Office of respondent No.5 with effect from 01.12.2015 to 10.11.2016. As observed above, respondent No.5 had extracted the work from the petitioner. Hence, respondent No.5, having extracted the work from the petitioner, is duty bound to pay the salary to the petitioner from 01.12.2015 to 10.11.2016. When the respondents failed to disburse the salary to the petitioner, he submitted several representations to the respondents, requesting them to pay the due salary. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement stating that, the petitioner was transferred vide official memorandum dated 02.05.2015 to the Town Municipality, Kolar and he did not report to the transferred place. Admittedly, respondent No.5 did not relieve the petitioner from the post of the Junior Engineer in

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41563 WP No. 7631 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

respondent No.5-Office. Until respondent No.5 relieves

¶71

the petitioner, he could not go and join at the transferred place. The petitioner had already worked from 01.12.2015 to 10.11.2016. The petitioner is entitled to the salary.

¶72

Thus, the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is arbitrary and erroneous.

¶73

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶74

pass the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i. The writ petition is allowed ;

¶77

ii. Annexure-AL dated 08.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed;

¶78

iii. Respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 20.11.2023 vide Annexure-AK and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶79

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶80

PA | CT:KHV | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sri Gangi Reddy K M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gangi Reddy K M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G N Bhaskar Bhandary Vs University of Agricultural Sciences

Smt Shyamala Kumari Bevinje Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B S Shankara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivarudraiah Vs State of Karnataka

S Shivakumar Vs University of Agricultural Science

Mr Kuruva Somesh Vs State Bank of India