IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.46622 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. D. ANANTHARAMAIAH S/O SRI LATE DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETD. SUPERINTENDENT, KHB R/O NO.80, 2DN CROSS, SUNKADA KATTE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 091.
(BY SRI. NARAYANA.S, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER OF HOUSING, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009.
(BY SRI. S.NANJUNDA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT. 7.11.2012, PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M & DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT ONE ADDITIONAL INCREMENT W.E.F. 16.4.83 TO THE PETITIONER AS PER CIRCULAR DT.9.8.2007 & 22.11.2008 DECLARING THE POST OF PETITIONER BILL COLLECTOR AS GROUP-C POST & TO REFIX THE PAY & PENSION WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner now retired employee of the respondent- Housing Board has a short grievance against the impugned endorsement dated 07.11.2012, a copy whereof is at Annexure-M, whose operative portion reads as under:
“ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ dªÀiÁ ªÀÄÄvÀì¢Ý zÀeÉðAiÀÄÄ UÀÆæ¥ï – r zÀeÉðUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ F ¸Ë®¨sÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ;10-1-1974 jAzÀ 2-9-1987 gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è vÁªÀÅ dªÀiÁ ªÀÄÄvÀì¢Ý UÀ¼ÁV PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ¸Ë®¨sÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”
2. The net effect of the impugned Endorsement is that: the petitioner is holding Group-D post and therefore, even if he has passed kannada language examination, he is not entitled to the grant of one additional increment admissible for the same; such admissibility is confined to the incumbents of posts in Group-C to which petitioner did not belong.
3. The respondent having entered appearance through his panel counsel resists the writ petition by filing the Statement of Objections dated 08.04.2014, gist of which is that petitioner had held the post of Bill Collector which falls in Group-D and not Group-C, and consequently the claim for the grant of this increment is not admissible.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of considered opinion that relief needs to be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector vide Official Memorandum dated 16.04.1983, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A in the pay scale of Rs.410–700 admissible to the Group-B posts; the Government Order dated 27.03.1982, a copy whereof is at Annexure-Q prescribes the pay scale of Rs.390-550 for Group-D posts.
[ In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds;
impugned endorsement having been quashed, a direction issues to the respondent to grant to the petitioner the subject increment and also a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks.
If the increment is not granted and the cost is not paid within the said period, for each of the following months the respondent shall pay to the petitioner an exemplary cost of Rs.2,000/- per month of delay which shall be recovered from erring official.
Sd/- JUDGE DS