Karnataka High Court
M Shivashankara Swamy vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited on 5 November, 2012
Author: N. Kumar
Bench: N. Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
WA No.16489 OF 2011(S-RES)
AND
WA.No.3875/12(S-RES)
IN WA.No.16489/2011:
BETWEEN:
M. Shivashankara Swamy
S/o.late S. Mallappa
62 years, R/at No.162, 69th Cross
5th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-10. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri.B.V.Gangi Reddy, Advocate for M/s.Subbarao
and Company, Advocates)
AND
1.Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Old Madras Road, Bangalore
Represented by its Managing Director.
2.The Senior Manager(P & A)
IR Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Air Port Road, Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.S.V.Shastri, Advocate for R-1 and R-2)
2
IN WA.No.3875/2012:
BETWEEN:
M. Shivashankara Swamy
S/o.late S. Mallappa
62 years, R/at No.162, 69th Cross
5th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-10. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri.B.V.Gangi Reddy, Advocate for M/s.Subbarao
and Company, Advocates)
AND
1.Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Old Madras Road, Bangalore
Represented by its Managing Director.
2.The Chief Manager(HR),
Engine Division,
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Air Port Road, Bangalore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.S.V.Shastri, Advocate for R-1 and R-2)
-0-0-0-0-0-
These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside theorder
passed in W.P.No.11735/06 and c/w
WP.No.33656/10(S-R) dated 14.7.2011.
These writ appeals coming on for final hearing this
day, N. KUMAR, J. delivered the following:-
3
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has declined to grant the benefit of the increments which the appellant had earned for a period of three years after promotion.
2. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Data Processing Officer on 14.7.2006. However, the said promotion was kept in abeyance by an order dated 26.7.2006 as some anomalies were noticed. The petitioner challenged the order keeping his promotion in abeyance before this Court in W.P.No.11735/06. There was an interim order of stay of the order of abeyance on 24.8.2006. By virtue of the stay order, he was permitted to continue in the promoted post. He was also paid the salary attached to the said promoted post. By virtue of the interim order of stay granted by this Court the respondents did not proceed further in the matter to find out the anomaly. In the meanwhile the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010. After his retirement they have paid all 4 retirement benefits to him. However, in the meanwhile the petitioner had earned four annual increments, out of which first increment was paid whereas the remaining three increments were not paid. Therefore, he preferred W.P.No.33656/10 for a direction to the respondents to pay the said three increments. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the writ petitions together passed a common order declining to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner on the ground that the promotion granted was subject to the pending litigation and if the anomalies exist he would not be entitled to promotion at all and as he was continued in the promotional post by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court and in the meanwhile he had reached the age of superannuation, he is not entitled to the benefit of three increments. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contended that in the first place before passing an order keeping the petitioner's promotion in abeyance the petitioner was not heard, no reasons were given for such an action. Even otherwise for nearly three years the respondents did not make any effort to find out the anomaly. As the petitioner has worked in the promoted post he has earned annual increments and now that he has retired from service he is entitled to the said increments. The learned Single Judge was not justified in denying the said benefit.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
5. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that though the petitioner was found to be eligible to be promoted and accordingly promoted on 14.7.2006 because the respondents noticed certain anomalies which if proved he was not entitled to promotion, by an order dated 27.6.2006 they kept his promotion in 6 abeyance. That order was challenged before this Court and stay order was obtained. Therefore, the petitioner was continued in the promotional post. He had been paid the salary attached to the said post. In fact he has also been paid one annual increment. It is only the remaining three increments which are withheld. In the meanwhile, he has superannuated from service on 31.7.2010. Because of the stay order granted by this Court the respondents were prevented from enquiring into the anomalies which is the cause for keeping the order of promotion in abeyance. That cannot be held against them. As the continuation of the petitioner was by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court and now that the writ petition challenging the order dated 26.7.06 has been dismissed as infructuous unless the anomaly is enquired into and if there is no substance therein then only the petitioner would be entitled to three increments which are withheld. Under those circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to grant the said benefit as the continuation of 7 the petitioner was in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court and not as a matter of right. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this writ petition.
6. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
*alb/-.