" 'AND-If' E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
PRESENT
THE HONELE MR JUSTICEII O
AND
THE HONBLE MR JUSTIOCEV K GOxIII*»IDARA.;I.1_IL.I_I
WRIT PETITION QF 2003
BETWEEN:
SR1 D.HUccHANAILASIAI-1,' :
S/0 LATE DASAP£;IA,V . _ "
AGE: 57 '
WORKING A€s_AC_C'='OUN'1'Si S.I'_IR.ER1N1?ENDENT,
OEEICEOE.EXEcU'I?IvE»--EI\I(3INEER,"'
ZILLA P:,ANcH'YA;T ENCHNEERINO DIVISION,
MYSO%, = ' I * I ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RIANc;.ANATI.IA;S"J.O'iS,
SR1 MMRAMESH IIOIS;-ADvs.)
V' OE 'KARNATAIIA,
RER'I'I_3«. 13'1"'i?I_NANCE COMMISSIONER,
vIDH_ANA,SOL-IDHA,
V V . BANGALORE."
SECRETARY, PWD
"S;OVT;"~_OE KARNATAKA,
_-M';S.BUILDING.
... BA1éIGALORE.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
{COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING}
SOUTH, K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE.
4. THE CONTROLLER OF STATE ACCOUNTS, I 2
STATE ACCOUNTS DEPT.
VI FLOOR, CAVERI BHAVAN,
BANGALORE ---- 560001.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEFfR',«--.._ .,
ZILLA PANCHYAT ENGINEERING?' '
MYSORE. .
6. SR} D.B.BIRADAR, ;
S /O BHEEMARAYA BIRADAR,
AGE:ABOUT45 YEARS,
ACCOUNTS sUP1LjRINTE;NDENfr,
ZILLA PANCHYEATDEVISIQN, "
BIJAPUR. " '
7. SR1
AGE:4E} , --
ACCOUzsITs. SUPERINTENDOENT', '
NATIONAL HJGHWA'{_:DIVN.I;"'«
CHITRADUFIGA, " "
8. SR; ASHOK
" " «AGE-:.C._A'BQU'1"» 45
ACC.OU.1\_?TS SUPERINTENDENT.
FPUIBLIC WO'£2Ks_1:.EpT.,
BIJAPURL' - V
9. SR1 R.V.'J-A7RTAR1<AR,
_ ,AGE:53~.YEARS,
' » . -- -. AC.COUN'FS SUPERINTENDENT,
I »MINOR.IRRIGATION DIVISION,
" CLBANCALORE.
I '] 1.o..E3RI J.GOPAL,
S V' 'IS/0'-v'RUDIzA1AH.
AGE: 49 YEARS.
ACCOUNTS SUPERINTENDENT,
MINOR IRRIGATION DIV N.,
BELLARY.
11.SRI CHANDRASHEKAR HANNIKERI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, _
ACCOUNTS SUPERINTENDENT, " "
OFFICE OF' EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 1
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT, I '
BELAGUM DIVISION, BELAGUM~..._V
12.SRI M.P.JAYARAM,
AGE: ABOUT 51
S/0 PADMANABAHAIAI-L_ .
ACCOUNTS SUPERINTENDENT,--.
OFFICE OF THE ExECU'mIE'--ENG1NEER, = '
PUBLIC WORKS.DEPT.,§BLDC§; '
NAZARABAD,f§(IY:5;13RI3,V = '
13.SRI VENKATAEAJU.' .. '
S/0
AGE: AI30UTI48'I¥EA?RS,--.'I I %
ACCoUNTS-- SUPERINTE NDENT,
PUBLIC WORKS
MYSORE
14.SI2.i[ I§.KAI\/IAI';A1<AR, _
' ._ AG1'1:_4Q,YEARS«,I _
"ACCO'UN'fS SUEERINTENDENT,
PU_BI-..IVC WrQRKS:j I)EPT.,
MAPJQALQRIFQ, '
-« . ,. ' 15.SRI PARASHURAM
2 AGE: ABOUT 45 YEARS.
"ACCOUNTS SUPERINTENDENT,
_ ;0I?'.FICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
"VARAHI DIVN., SIDDAPURA.
.. UDUPI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SR1 R.SWAMYNA’I’HAN. ADV. FOR R1,
SMT SHEELA KRISHNA, ADV. F OR R1 -5,
SR} IVLVINAY KEERTHY, ADV. F OR R6- 15}
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER _
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYI.N’GV-‘i’Q”-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED..,.”‘i8.i.2.2oo2′ —.
PASSED BY THE TIRBUNATL» ._iN AP_PI.JiiCATION’-.A
NO.5201 /2002 VIDE ANNEXURE-C1,’
THIS PETITION COMING oN”r.oR FINA}-_»
THIS DAY, SABHAHIT J., MADEjn~IE EoI,I,o\2I{Ii«I:(}3′.._f ”
This petition is filed’ Application
No.5201/2001 oiieiiie riie firijihe’ ‘Administrative
Tribunal at (Fj1ereinafterf referred to as “KAT” for
brevity} the order dated 18.12.2002
wherein the tribunal Aihasédehclified to quash the Government
Orderpdated as Annexure A and dismissed the
2 “applicatio11 with costsfiii
2 ‘ herein filed Application No.5201/2001 on
the file of the KAT averring that the applicant belongs to the
“cadre””of Accounts Superinendent in the scale of Rs.5575–
which is an en~cadered post in the State Accounts
‘ I-3 /9
‘if
Department. Even though the post is shown in the cadre
strength of Public Works Department, as per the decision’~of
the Horl’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of .
Mysore vs M N Krishnamurthy andApVothers.”””‘1’llie, 9″‘
Accounts Superintendent have been eneaderedl irlthe ::Sta’t-3*
Accounts Department and the -entire’Acontrol:’being”vested
with the Controller of State land the vV}Finance
Department, to comply the o:rder.__p.assed by Hon’b1e
Supreme Court in that regard. and recruitment
9′ A C’ \}’\”‘u«.1x:”{Ae,.
rules of Public “WorkstDep-artrnent.’vpféifl that post of
Accounts Sliipelfinteridenlt-[has9..to exclusively filled by
deputatslon l_of7I'[_ana of _* the cadre of Accounts
Superinte’ndent of ..thejy’Sta’t.-{Accounts Department. The said
rules have been ‘either amended or altered in any
9’ ”l1<1an'i:'.–e:r and hold theflfield and the same cannot be altered by
notwithstanding the said settled legal
position, 2*.15"i}eslpondent has by an order dated 26.7.1999 —
999"'-.«.!'Annexure_AT~A5 sought to fill up the post of Accounts
"S'uperi13tendent from FDAs of Public Works Department on
…Wpromotion which is not permissible and by a Government
Order dated 2.6.2000 the decision has been taken after due
consuitation between the Public Works Department.
Finance Department that posts stated t}'l(3I'€§iI1""'u;§/'ii: ~
graded with effect from 2.6.20_O,Q,__ Vfhen'.::'_'the" "
Government Order was in force and-._the_p"mies'have"not.:"t2eén_1
amended, one Sn' Venkat'ara;'u flied pan7_ apvpIica;'tion –. L'
No.I112/2001 challenging theiiposting'dofiappiicant to
Mysore, in the present "da§€'d.g5,1.200l as per
Annexure A7. The saidporder [becorne effective
and applicant and it is further
averred that V. iistoovtd 'thus, 2nd respondent
eontrary to recruitment
rules hasA'passed'the.» 18.4.2001 vide AnneX:ureA8
wherein, ford' "irr1p1en1entation of the earlier order dated
among 'V253"Accounts Superintendent posts, 13
V'"Aiccoii11ts'Siipéeriintendent Posts has been downgraded and it
is .tha.ti::the said posts should be fiiled up by the
'Public Woijks Department on promotion from the cadre of
Wherefore, the petitioner sought for quashing of the
___"'.'order dated 18.4.2001 Vide Annexure A8 and to quash the
{£9/§:2
"-':\1\w3" '17. N; '~:»~…\ v\
C; ~=- ._ _ ..
orderkthat it héééébeenzarbitrary and Violative of Article 14
g’ is ~/\ *1». 3 at ‘mf-w. 03.. :’S.»\§§r.\r ,
and 16:KIssue consequential directions to the respondent.s”to
continue the applicant in the post without ~
View of his valid appointment in said post” the if
Cadre and Recruitment Rules paissi’
further orders as this Court may’ c.1_eemlfit. if V
3. The applicationx’Was’l_fi the respondents
contending that the been upheld
and the applic-é_{:ntlnot affected by the
down grading The would only be
consequ.entia_lly:faffeclted be either reverted back
to the posted to some other place.
In any ..viewlu”of_:Vtl1e” In’-atter, he had no locus standi to
V’ ‘c-halien’ge.”the’* said oi~dc£_’f
l ‘ iivas no order of stay before the tribunal. The
tribunal’ after hearing the contentions of the parties, rejected
“the.:ap’plication by its order dated 18.12.2002 and feeling
by the same, this writ petition is filed by the
applicant in Application No.5201/2001 on the file of the
KAT.
5. We have heard the learne_d”Mcouns_eI”appearing.for_ K”
the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for ‘iorespo’17,dent.s’6i_’
to 15 and the learned Government Aid-votcaate for
respondents 1 to 4.
6. Learned coun.se1_ ‘the petitioner
submitted orderi the post of 13
Accounts to recruit to the said
posts working in the PWI)
Department_ and ;Errigatbi:on_:’:pDepartment from the cadre of
FDAs would étpiejvudiclaily aifect the petitioner as he will be
“d.ispIaced_”rfro’m& the «post as he is working on deputation
évpetitioner is downgraded, the person promoted
wou1d’Vhbeva.pp’:o£nted to his post and therefore, he would be
vd’,.,_”prejud1ciaI]:y affected by the order and the notification of
._ “d’own§i7ading. Learned counsel submitted that the order of
..__”””doi;¢;rngrad1ng of 13 posts of Accounts Superintendents has
been set–aside by the Division Bench of this Court in M V
DIXIT 8: ORS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS reported in
HR 2004 Kar., 3802 and in paragraph 27 of the-.__said
Judgment as under: if 0
“Therefore, it has to be helcgl 00′.
notifications dated 18.6.1999 and 5,.],_2.’=199.9: ._
downgrading certain postsii »..of I accounts
Superintendents to a lower} scale are “inva1’idv,_p
being contrary to Section 3(1) a–r_1d’J3[3}. _0f..ti’ie ~
Karnataka State Civil: _Services’~ Act,-‘–l.1978.
However, as we are infoirried that the decisionof.
a learned Single Judge o’f»._this Court ‘by’ order
dated 7.7.2000 _ in W..P._N.os;v29965i66/1999
upholding the validity of the notification dated
18.6.1999, has attained fin;1lity,”l.this_ decision
Will not’ affect the V posts “v.\jvhi_’ch were
downgraded and ,fi1led.:”by” Apromoteesl from the
cadre of§FirlstVg.’Divi:sion -.Assist’ants/Sftore Keepers
in the _PW/ Irrigativori ‘C’liC’–.pEI.IT.’l2Ii”l:fi’.’I1t”.’
has held ‘that even ttiotrglripetitioner has retired from service
on attaining tlieaage’ ofsuperannuation on 30.4.2008, there
. A”VV&5Sli”?50l’rlS5t53’«..befoféwthis Court or before the tribunal.
itherelfo’re:,’ be entitled to consequential benefits.
Government Advocate submitted that the
‘gdownlgrtaldingx of the post would not in anyway affect the
‘ .jconlditions of service of applicant as he has been on
K5353
10
deputation and he cannot claim right to continue in the
same post as his deputation is subject to repatriation and
posting to another department and continuing in the
Accounts Department and in any View of the matter’,-jéésincye
the petitioner has attained the age of superannuatoioii
retired from service on 30.6.200-53;’ the p:rayer’l:.itseif_i’has
become infructuous as petitioner
any consequential benefits.
8. Learned counsel appearing for responcl.envt§s 6 to 14
submitted that petitioner consequential
benefit event ‘iffjt.h_e ‘A?wr1t_petition is allowed as he is already
been re’i:ire’d from .jserv:¢e;. Therefore, petitioner is not
entitied to lany relief “inl'”this writ petition and sought for
it it the petition.
9., izsze have given careful consideration to the
llcopntentioris..of;:.the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and4″scrt1.tin’1sed the material on record.
1:5,”-é
V3
10. The material on record would clearly Show that
the petitioner/applicant before the tribunal was worl:ing=–on
deputation in the post of Accounts ‘ _
according to him, he was affected bynthe d¢;sm1g£e;dirig’er K”
posts by the Government by notii”icatiQ’ne 1
he would be repatriated Acvcounts–.l:’
Department or posted to and his
services in the PWI) be The validity or
otherwise of the n_otificati.o.n_ would not
in any way ioflseivice of the applicant
and even allowed, the same would not
enableaghiitri benefit as there is
no reduc+.io’nlin condition of service and the
tribunal has rightly that the application was on
,,,.,deputatio.n,”i*he cannotvclaim as of right to continue in the
u._sa;ne’ ~ lvlrzithat view of the matter, since the petitioner
frornbyeing shifted from the post in which he was on
Qdeputatioii in the FWD as Accounts Superintendent, is not
‘ll: way affected by the downgrading of the post and there
was no order of stay before the tribunal or in this writ
in
brnfila ‘V
petition. It is clear that the petitioner would not be entitled
to any consequential benefit or financial benefit as his pay
has not been reduced and his conditions of service_has”.not
been affected and he has already retired on attaining _
of superannuation on 30.6.2008 and as he is = ..
we hold that the order passed by the
does not call for interference; Accordingly,
disposed of.