Doddaiah vs The Chief Personnel Manager Bmtc on 16 February, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Doddaiah vs The Chief Personnel Manager Bmtc on 16 February, 2016

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                            1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

       WRIT PETITION NO.49619/2013 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

DODDAIAH,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGE 43 YEARS,
CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO.7510, BMTC,
20TH DEPOT, BANASHANKARI,
BENGALURU,
                                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.L.SHEKAR, ADV.)

AND:

THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER,
B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES,
K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 027.
                                    ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADV.)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH     THE    IMPUGNED      ENDORSEMENT    DATED
25.07.2013 PASSED BY        THE   RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
                               2



                          ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 25.07.2013 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondent-Corporation to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner with effect from 22.12.1995 and extend all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed to the post of Conductor on 22.03.1993. The details in that regard have been referred in the petition. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of probation to be extended with effect from 22.12.1995. While taking note of the claim that had been putforth by the petitioner and to reject such claim, the respondent-Corporation has issued the endorsement dated 25.07.2013. For rejection of the claim, the entire basis is the circular No.955 dated 16.08.1995. The objection statement filed to the instant petition is also to the same effect.

3. In order to consider the correctness of such consideration, the circular No.955 was directed to be produced before this Court. A perusal of the same would disclose that it is dated 16.08.1995 and the said circular relates to the consideration in the background of production of the caste certificate. The consideration of the case of the petitioner is not in that direction but, to consider as to whether the claim of the petitioner seeking benefit of probation with effect from 22.12.1995 and the comparison made by the petitioner that another employee, who was junior to the petitioner was given that benefit is the matter which requires consideration at the hands of the respondent-Corporation.

4. Since, appropriate consideration has not been made, the endorsement dated 25.07.2013 in its present form would not sustainable, the same is accordingly quashed. The respondent-Corporation is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the contentions putforth by the petitioner and an appropriate decision be taken and the same be conveyed 4 to the petitioner in that regard. The consideration shall be made and the result of the same shall be intimated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but, not later than six weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the respondent-Corporation.

Petition disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court