Bussappa Gari Raghavendra vs Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., on 11 January, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Bussappa Gari Raghavendra vs Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., on 11 January, 2013

Bench: N. Ananda

                               1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
      DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013
                            BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
          WRIT PETITION No.60063/2011 (S-PRO)

BETWEEN:

BUSSAPPA GARI RAGHAVENDRA
S/O BHARAMANNA
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: ASST. ENGINEER (CIVIL),
BELLARY THERMAL POWER STATION,
KUDUTINI, DIST. BELLARY                   ...   PETITIONER

(By Sri.V.M.SHEELVANT, ADV.)

AND

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
NO. 82, SHAKTIBHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR                  ...   RESPONDENT

(By Sri.N.M.HANSI, ADV. )


     This petition is filed under articles 226 & 227 of
Constitution of India praying to quash the seniority list of
AEE (Civil) as contrary to the roaster as per Annexure-'D'
etc.

     This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the court made the following:
                                 2




                           ORDER

The petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer and he was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on the establishment of respondent to a post reserved for ST candidate as per the roaster.

2. It is the grievance of petitioner that his promotion should have been given retrospective effect from the date on which the reserved post fell vacant. In this connection, the petitioner has given representations as per Annexure-'G' dated 30.04.2009, Annexure-'G1' dated 20.10.2009, Annexure-'G2' dated 02.06.2010. The respondent has neither accepted nor rejected these representations.

3. As this court is of the opinion that respondent should have considered the representations, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion regarding merits and demerits of the claim made by the petitioner. It is also not necessary to express any opinion as to the right of the petitioner to claim promotion from the retrospective date. 3

4. Therefore, I pass the following:

ORDER The petition is accepted. The respondent is directed to consider representations of petitioner as per Annexures-'G', 'G1' and 'G2' in accordance with the law within a period of three months from today.

Sd/-

JUDGE Np/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court