Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

S P B Nanjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2014

Author: L.Narayana Swamy

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                         1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY, 2014

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

          WP NOS 35006- 35034 OF 2014 (S)

BETWEEN

1.   S P B NANJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
     S/O PUTTANNA,
     EARLIER WORIKING AS COMMUNITY
     AFFAIRS OFFICER,
     R/A NO.84,
     20TH CROSS, ITTAMADUGU,
     BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
     BANGALORE-560085

2.   J.T.HANUMANTHA RAJU
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
     S/O J.T.THIPPESWAMY,
     COMMUNITY AFFARIS,
     OFFICER, NOW WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER,
     PATTANA PANCHAYATH
     CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

3.   R.SHIVAKUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
     S/O LATE H.RAMIAH,
     WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZER,
     OFFICER OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE,
     OFFICER RAJARAJESWARINAGAR,
     RAJARAJESWARI ZONE, BBMP,
     BANGALORE.

4.   SMT.H.G.SHOBA
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     WORIKINGAS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
     OFFICER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
                          2


     DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,
     BANGALORE-560001

5.   VENKATANAIKA
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     S/O LATE DASANAIKA,
     WORKING COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
     OFFICER, TMC,
     NANJANGUD
     MYSORE DISTRICT.

6.   M.RAJANNA
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
     S/O LATE C.MAHADEVAPPA,
     COMMUNITY AFFARIS
     OFFICER, NOW WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER,
     TMC SRIRANGAPATNA
     MANDYA DISTRICT.

7.   S.LOKESH
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
     S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
     COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
     OFFICER, NOW WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER,
     TMC BANNUR,
     MYSORE DISTRICT.

8.   H.C.HANUMANTHEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     S/O LATE H.CHIKKANNA,
     COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
     OFFICER, NOW WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER,
     TMC GOWRIBIDANUR
     CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST.

9.   L.MOHAN KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     S/O LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH
     WORKING AS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
     OFFICER, PATTANA PANCHAYAT,
     HOSANAGARA
     SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
                            3


10.   M.RAJAKUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
      S/O M.SHIVALINGAPPA,
      COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
      OFFICER, NOW WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER,
      TMC SHIRALAKOPPA SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

11.   SHIVANAKARI GOWDA
      AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
      S/O SHIVANEGOWDA,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY AFFARIS,
      OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
      CHANNAPATNA
      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

12.   M.ESWARAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
      S/O MALLI, WORKING AS COMMUNITY
      ORGANIZER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
      BHADRAVATHI.

13.   T.V.SUMA
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
      W/O SHIVANANKARI GOWDA,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
      OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
      MAGADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

14.   KADIGESH K SIRSI
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
      S/O KRISHNAPPA SIRSI,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY AFFARIS,
      OFFICER, MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
      DAVANGERE.

15.   SIDDARAJU
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
      W/O LATE LINGEGOWDA,
      WORKING AS COMUNITY ORGANIZER,
      CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
      RAMANAGA,
      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
                            4


16.   R.V.MANJUNATH
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
      S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
      OFFICER
      TMC BANNUR,
      MYSORE DISTRICT.

17.   B.SHASHIKUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
      S/O CHIKKAPPA,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZER,
      TMC, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT.

18.   B.S.MOUNESH
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
      S/O RAMANNA
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZER
      CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
      SAGAR,
      SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

19.   A.SURESH
      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
      S/O ANANDA MARAKALA,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
      OFFICER, KSBCL DEPOT,
      JANKALNAGAR,
      SAGAR,
      SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

20.   PRASANNA KUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
      S/O D.ANJANEYALU,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
      OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
      SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

21.   D.UMESH
      MAJOR,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY
      ORGANIZER,
      TMC,HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                              5




22.   SMT. ROOPA B.SHETTY,
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY RGANIZER,
      MAHANAGARA PALIKE, LALBAGH,
      MANGALORE-575003

23.   SMT.VIJAYA
      MAJOR,
      COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
      OFFICER, NOW WORKING AS MUNICIPAL
      COMMISSIONER
      CMC,CHAMARAJNAGAR.

24.   C.LOKYANAIKA
      AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
      S/O L.CHANDRANAIKA,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZER,
      TMC, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANGERE DISTRICT.

25.   M.N.MAHESH
      MAJOR, FATHER NAME ; NOT KNOWN
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZER,
      TMC, MADDUR,
      MANDYA DISTRICT.

26.   L.SOMANNA
      MAJOR, FATHER NAME ; NOT KNOWN
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZER
      OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,
      BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PLIKE,
      JAYANAGAR II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
      BANGALORE-560011

27.   M.KRISHNAPPA
      MAJOR, FATHER NAME ; NOT KNOWN
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZER
      SJSRY, BBMP, WESTERN ZONE,
      SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-5600020

28.   SMT.SUMITRA
      AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
      W/O MOHANKUMAR,
                            6


      WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZER,
      PATANA PANCHAYAT,
      HOSANAGAR,
      SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

29.   T.BALACHANDRAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
      S/O BEERAPPA,
      WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZER,
      CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
      SAGAR,
      SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577401 ... PETITIONERS

(By Sri. M.: NAGA PRASANNA , ADVOCATE)


AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
      DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
      VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

2.    COMMISSIONER
      DIRECTORATE OF MINICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
      9TH FLOO,R V.V.TOWER, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
      BANGALORE-560001         ... RESPONDENTS

(By Smt M.S.PRATHIMA, HCGP )


       THESE W.PS. FILED PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1
TO   CONSIDER     THE  REPRESENTATIONS    OF    THE
PETITIONERS DATED 10.5.2011, 6.6.2011 AND 13.1.2012
VIDE ANN-M, N, P AND GRANT THE SERVICE BENEFITS BY
INCLUDING THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THEM PRIOR TO
THEIR DATES OF ABSORPTION FOR ALL PURPOSES OF
DETERMINATION OF SERVICE CONDITIONS
                                7


     THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRLY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.

2. The respondent No.2 - The Commissioner of Director of Municipal Administration, Bangalore addressed a letter to the Secretary, Urban Development Department on 15.3.2013 recommending the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Chief Officer Gr.I. It is noticed in the recommendation itself, the draft rules have been incorporated. The said recommendation though it is made for more than a year ago, the respondent - Government has not considered the same.

3. On the basis of recommendation of respondent No.2, the petitioners have made representation dated 13.1.2012 and the same has been acknowledged by the respondents and in the representation , it has been prayed for consideration as it was recommended by R-2. The petitioners seek writ of mandamus to the Government to consider the recommendation of the R-2, representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. When said draft rules have been framed and eligibility of the petitioners has been considered 8 by R-2, it is the duty of the Government to pass appropriate orders in considering the statutory right of the petitioners. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that the representations made by the petitioners in the light of the recommendation by R2 will be considered in accordance with law if not already considered.

4.In light of the submission of the learned counsel for both sides, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in the light of the recommendation by R-2. It is stated that some of the petitioners have retired from service and their cases shall be considered for retirement benefits as per law.

Sd/-

JUDGE NM/