THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU vs SRI HANUMANTAPPA BANDIWADDAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT APPEAL NO.100517 OF 2022 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
TO GOVT URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
TH,
9 FLOOR,
VISHWESWARAIAH TOWER,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
URBAN CELL HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI – 581 110.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. SRI. HANUMANTAPPA
S/O. TIMMANNA BANDIWADDAR,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
REVENUE OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO.40,
ST
AMBIKA NAGAR, 1 CROSS,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
NAR MITRA CLINIC, SHRINAGAR,
UNKAL-HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD – 580 031.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI – 581 110.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE IN W.P. NO. 110921/2017
DATED 17-11-2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
The State is before us calling in question an order of the
learned Single Judge which directs grant of promotion as is
granted to his junior one B. S. Jeevan Kumar to the cadre that
B. S. Jeevan Kumar is granted.
2. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader
Smt.Girija Hiremath, appearing for the appellants/State;
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
learned counsel Sri.M.S.Haravi, appearing for respondent No.1
and learned counsel Sri. N.P.Vivekmehta, appearing for
respondent No.2. We have perused the material available on
record.
3. The facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The respondent No.1 is appointed as a Naka Clerk/Bill
Collector on 7.2.1973, so is Sri. B S Jeevan Kumar
on21.09.1973, seven months after the appointment of
respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is promoted as First Grade
Revenue Inspector on 07.03.1998, while Jeevan Kumar was
promoted as First Division Assistant on 31.07.1979. Later,
respondent No.1 was promoted on 27.09.2006 as Revenue
Officer, while his junior Jeevan Kumar as a Manager. The
respondent No.1 retired from service on 30.11.2012 but had
registered his claim for promotion on par with Jeevan Kumar by
submitting representations prior to his retirement. The
representations met with an endorsement in the year 2017 and
it is then the respondent No.1 approached this Court in Writ
Petition No.110921/2017. The learned Single Judge allowed the
claim of the respondent No.1 by the following Order:
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
“ By an endorsement dated 23.5.2017 vide
nd
Annexure-K, the 2 respondent has rejected the
claim of petitioner for granting promotion on par with
Sri B S Jeevan Kumar on the ground that the
petitioner was promoted as First Grade Revenue
Inspector from the cadre of Bill Collector and
whereas, Sri B S Jeevan Kumar was promoted as
second division assistant. Taking exception to the
same, this writ petition is filed.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Naka Clerk/Bill
Collector on 7.2.1973 and Sri B S Jeevan Kumar was
appointed as Naka Clerk on 21.9.1973. Thereafter,
the petitioner was promoted as First Grade Revenue
Inspector on 7.3.1998 and whereas Sri B S Jeevan
Kumar, when he was working as Naka Clerk/Bill
Collector was promoted to the post of FDA on
31.7.1979. Subsequently, the petitioner was
promoted as Revenue Officer when he was working
as Revenue Inspector w.e.f. 27.9.2006 and whereas
Sri B S Jeevan Kumar was promoted as Manager on
30.6.1992 when he was working as FDA. Petitioner
when working as Revenue Officer retired from service
on 30.11.2012 on attaining the age of
superannuation.
3. Petitioner submitted a representation
requesting to consider his promotion on par with Sri
B S Jeevan Kumar, who was initially appointed as Bill
Collector. The said representation was not
considered. Hence, petitioner was constrained to file
WP No.83924/2013. This Court by order dated
7.3.2017 directed the 2nd respondent herein to
consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance
with law.
4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court,
the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned
endorsement dated 23.5.2017 vide Annexure-K
rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ
petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that initially petitioner as well as Sri B S Jeevan
Kumar were appointed in the same cadre i.e. Bill
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
Collector. Therefore, he submits that Sri B S Jeevan
Kumar was junior to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner
is entitled for grant of promotion on par with Sri B S
Jeevan Kumar both having been promoted from the
same feeder cadre.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State
submits that the impugned endorsement issued by
respondent No.2 is in accordance with law and does
not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal
of the writ petition.
7. I have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as
well as Sri B S Jeevan Kumar were appointed in the
cadre of Bill Collector and thereafter, the petitioner
was promoted to the post of First Grade Revenue
Inspector, whereas Sri B S Jeevan Kumar was
promoted as FDA. The petitioner when he was
working as First Grade Revenue Inspector was
promoted to the post of Revenue Officer, whereas Sri
B S Jeevankumar when he was working as FDA was
promoted to the post of Manager.
9. The contention of the respondents – State is
that the promotion of the petitioner as well as Sri B S
Jeevan Kumar were different cadres. Hence, the
petitioner is not entitled for grant of promotion on
par with Sri B S Jeevan Kumar. The said contention
of the respondents – State is not acceptable, when
the petitioner and Sri B S Jeevan Kumar were
promoted from the same feeder cadre and denial of
the same amounts to discrimination. Hence, the
impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd
respondent is not sustainable in law.
10. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of
the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for
grant of promotion on par with Sri B S Jeevan
Kumar. Hence, I pass the following:
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsement
dated 23.5.2017 issued by the
2nd respondent vide Annexure-K
is hereby quashed;
st nd
iii) The 1 and 2 respondents are
hereby directed to grant
promotion to the petitioner on par
with Sri B S Jeevankumar from
the date from which it was due
and pay him all monetary benefits
attached to the said promotional
posts. The said exercise shall be
completed within a period of
three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this
order. ”
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader, Smt.
Girija Hiremath, appearing for the appellants/State, would
vehemently contend that the respondent No.1 retired in the
year 2012 and today promotion cannot be granted to him due
to his retirement. Apart from the said fact, the learned High
Court Government Pleader would submit that the feeder cadre
is different, the stream of service of respondent No.1 and
Jeevan Kumar are different, and therefore, there is no warrant
for grant of promotion to respondent No.1 as is granted to
Jeevan Kumar. The learned High Court Government Pleader
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
would seek the order of the learned Single Judge to be set
aside.
Per contra
5. , the learned counsel Sri.M.S. Haravi,
appearing for respondent No. 1, would refute the submission in
contending that merely because respondent No.1 has retired
from service, it would not take away his claim, if he has
registered his claim earlier to his retirement. In fact, he has
registered his claim earlier and approached this Court in the
year 2013 in WP No.83924 of 2013 seeking consideration of the
representation given by respondent No.1. Its endorsement is
rendered in the year 2017.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsels.
7. The intra-Court appeal is preferred by the State
against the order of the learned Single Judge. The order is
quoted supra. The order does not brood any perversity for the
reason that the date of appointment of one B.S. Jeevan Kumar
was 7 months after the date of appointment of the respondent
No.1. The feeder cadres are the same to future promotion. Sri.
B.S. Jeevan Kumar, though being junior, was promoted to
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
higher echelons of office and retired as Commissioner Grade-I,
while the respondent No.1 was not even promoted to such
higher echelons but was promoted as Revenue Officer and
retired as Revenue Officer on 30.11.2012. He had submitted his
representation way back in the year 2005, in the matter of
seniority and discrimination. The representation reads as
follows:
“ Sub: In the matter of seniority regarding.
Ref: Order of Under Secretary, Urban
Development Department No.UDD 18 EMC 2005
dated 22/06/05
Respected Sir,
With reference to the subject and reference cited
above, the undersigned most humbly submits the following
few lines for your honour's well considered notice and for
necessary action in the matter.
I am a graduate and I was appointed as a Naka
Clerk by the then Town Municipality, Haveri which is
presently City Municipality. My appointment as a
Naka Clerk was on 02/02/1973. I served as such
satisfactorily and without sparing any pains of my
superiors and by taking into consideration my clean
services, I have been promoted as F.G.R.I. w.e.f.
07/03/1998 as per the order of promotion passed
by your goodselves.
ST
Since 07/03/98, I have been working as 1 Grade
Revenue transferred to Shiggaon T.M.C. by the
order of the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri.
Sir, I have put in an unblemished total service of 33
years under your honour's able guidance.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
As per the provisional seniority list of the Naka Clerk
in the municipal services of old Dharwad District
prepared as on 01/01/85, my name finds place at
serial no.151, whereas, the name of one Sri B.S.
Jeevan Kumar finds place at Serial No.204 in the
said list.
Though it is not necessary, I would like to appraise
to your honour's kind notice that those who were
appointed as Naka Clerk were considered on par
nd
with 2 Division Clerks by virtue of the Government
Order No.HMA 1173 MLR 76 dtd. 31/05/77. The
post of Naka clerk have been re-designated as II
Division Clerk. Accordingly since I was a graduate, I
have got the benefit of four increments.
I respectfully submit that I am entitled to be
promoted from the post of F.G.R.I to the higher
cadre in our department. Hitherto I have not been
promoted as such though I am having required
qualification, ability and suitability to hold the next
higher cadre posts.
I further submit that one Sri.B.S. Jeevan Kumar
joined the services in the year i.e. on 23/09/73 as
Naka Clerk in the then T.M.C., Rannebennur. He
was working in T.M.C., Byadgi very recently. He was
junior to me according to the provisional seniority
list of Naka Clerks prepared as on 01/01/85. It
clearly shows that he is junior to me but whereas
your goodselves have been pleased to promote him
as Commissioner Grade II of Madikeri Municipality
by your honour's order Under Secretary, Urban
Development Department No.UDD 18 EMC 2005
dated 22/06/05. From your honour's above said
order, it is clear that the said Sri.B.S. Jeevan Kumar
has been given the said promotion even by
elevating him by crossing over two stages by
adopting him to K.M.A.S. with retrospective effect
from 11/03/1994. As such, now he has become the
Commissioner Grade II. Even looking to the
qualification, the said Sri.B.S. Jeevan Kumar is a
non graduate, but whereas I am a graduate and
moreover I come from Scheduled Caste Community
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
Since my junior Sri B.S. Jeevan Kumar has been
promoted as Grade II Commissioner, I have been
met with injustice since both myself and the said Sri
B.S. Jeevan Kumar come from the same cadre Le
Naka Clerks post. Thus, justice requires that I
should also be given the same type of promotion in
the very same nature and manner by considering
me as an official belonging to K.M.A.S. as has been
done by your goodselves respecting the said
Sri.B.S. Jeevan Kumar.
I respectfully submit that I approached your honour
personally in this respect and placed my grievance
about my seniority and deprival of my promotion as
against Sri.B.S. Jeevan Kumar and I was told by
your kind honour to make representation and hence
I am submitting this representation and praying you
as follows.
•
I am not only senior to Sri.B.S. Jeevan
Kumar, but also I am a graduate and I come
from Scheduled Caste Community and I am
entitled and eligible to be promoted to the
very same post and grade as it has been in
case of Sri.B.S. Jeevan Kumar.
•
I hope your goodselves will be kind enough to
set right the injustice that has been caused to
me and hence I prefer this representation and
appeal to your kind sense of justice and fair
play in the matter and most humbly request
your goodselves to pass necessary promotion
orders to me for which act of kindness, I shall
be highly obliged to you sir.
I further hope that your goodselves will see that
justice would be caused to me within a reasonable time to
avoid me a situation to
approach the court of law in the matter and also I should
not be deprived of my legal remedies to be pursued within
the stipulated period.
Thanking you sir,
Yours faithfully,
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
(H.T. Bandiwaddar)
F.G.R.I.
Town Panchayat, Shiggaon
Dist. Haveri. ”
8. In the light of the registration of the claim of the
respondent No.1 long before his retirement, the fact of
intervening retirement of respondent No.1 would not vanish his
right into thin air. It is a settled principle of law that
registration of a claim prior to retirement can be continued
through legal proceedings even after retirement. It would be
altogether a different circumstance, if the employee has not
even represented or registered his claim prior to retirement. It
is in those circumstances, the submission of the learned High
Court Government Pleader would merit acceptance, not in the
subject claim.
9. It would become apposite to refer to the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of DR. SANDHYA JAIN (MRS)
1
v. DR. SUBHASH GARG AND ANOTHER , wherein it observes
as under:
“8. The next question which comes up
for consideration is whether the Regulations
framed by the Dental Council contains any
1
(1998) 8 SCC 449
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
prohibition for appointing two Readers from one
discipline which would stand on the way of the
Tribunal to issue the directions for consideration
of the case of Dr. Garg. According to Mr. Salve as
well as Mr. Choudhary, the Tribunal relied upon
the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Murli
Babu, AIR (I 988) SC I 048. In the aforesaid case
this Court had observed that the
recommendations made by the Medical' Council of
India or the Regulations framed by it are only
recommendatory and not mandatory and right to
be considered for promotion is a condition of
service and it can only be regulated by a rule
framed under the proviso to Article 309 and the
recommendation of Medical Council could not
over-ride a rule framed under Article 309. In the
Constitution Bench decision on which the counsels
appearing for the appellants strongly relied, the
question for consideration was whether it is
possible for the State Government to prescribe
different admission criteria, in the sense of
prescribing different minimum qualifying marks
for special category candidates, seeking
admission under the reserved category. It is in
that context the Court had observed that by
permitting the State Government to lay down the
minimum qualifying marks for the post-graduate
classes would entail sacrificing the merit
altogether and, therefore, the same is not
permissible. We fail to understand how the
aforesaid decision will be of any assistance in
deciding the question whether a direction can be
issued to consider the case of Dr.Garg in respect
of the fifth vacancy which could be filled up by a
lecturer of any discipline. That apart, no
provisions of the Dental Council's Regulation was
placed before us to indicate that there is an
embargo for appointing two Readers from the
same discipline in a particular Dental College. If
there is no provision in the Dental Council
Regulations, prohibiting appointment of two
Readers in a particular discipline in a Dental
College and the Recruitment Rules framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution being also silent
inasmuch as it does not indicate as to how the
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
fifth post of Reader will be filled up, then the
same can be filled up by administrative decision
of the Government and such a decision cannot be
held to be repugnant to the provisions of the
Dental Council Regulations. As we have stated
earlier, there is no repugnancy and that being the
position and in view of our conclusion that the
fifth post of Reader could be filled up by a lecturer
of any discipline and in fact was being filled up by
the State Government, we see no illegality G in
the impugned direction of the Tribunal, calling
upon the State to consider the case of Dr. Garg
when a vacancy was available and he had become
eligible for being considered. It has been
brought to our notice that said Dr. Garg has
in the meantime been promoted as Reader
but still his right to be considered at an
earlier point of time when he was not
considered erroneously, cannot be said to
have been wiped of by the subsequent
promotion. In the aforesaid premises, we
are of the considered opinion that the
Tribunal rightly issued the impugned
directions. We see no error in the same, so
as to be interfered with by this Court. ”
10. It also becomes apposite to refer to the judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
2
in UNION OF INDIA v. SURESH KUMAR , wherein it holds as
follows:
“ …. …. ….
6. The last argument which has been raised
is that no benefit of retrospective promotion can
be granted as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Diary No. 43488 of 2023, titled
‘Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal
Satpathi’, decided on 27.11.2024 wherein it has
2
2026 SCC OnLine P&H 19739
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
been categorically held that retrospective
promotion cannot be granted. It may be noticed
that the said judgment will not be applicable
in the present case as the primary question
in the said judgment is that a person
recommended for promotion before his
retirement but did not receive actual
promotion to higher post due to
administrative delay is not entitled to the
promotional post after his retirement so as
to grant retrospective promotion, whereas in
the present case, juniors of the respondent
were granted benefit of promotion which
was denied to him. Hence, any junior who
has been granted promotion while ignoring a
senior eligible candidate available for
promotion, creates a right in favour of such
senior employee to claim promotion with
effect from the date his juniors were
promoted. Therefore, the benefit which has
been granted by the Tribunal is perfectly
valid so as to grant promotion to the post of
Risaldar to the respondent from the date his
juniors were promoted on basis of parity,
and therefore, the judgment in Dr. Amal
Satpathi's case (supra) will not be applicable
in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The afore-quoted judgments hold that if the claim had
been registered prior to retirement, the claim would be
continued even after retirement. The State cannot take a stand
that the intervening retirement has obliterated the claim of the
respondent. In that light, we do not find any warrant of
interference to the order of the learned Single Judge.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17123-DB
WA No. 100517 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020119782022
11. The writ appeal lacking in merit stands rejected .
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
JTR
CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6