Karnataka High Court
B.S. Parmeshwara vs State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
W.P No.33984/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.33984 OF 2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN :
B.S. PARMESHWARA
S/O SHIVA RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED STENOGRAPHER
R/AT SHIVAPARVATHY
NO.855, 4TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS
BEHIND LINKAYATA BURIAL GROUND
VIDYARANYAPURA
MYSORE-570 008 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. M.S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. DATTATRAYA V. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR GENERAL
W.P No.33984/2015
2
3. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT
LAW COURT COMPLEX
KRISHNA MURTHY PURAM
MYSORE-570 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA S. GAYATHRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-3 DATED 21.2.2015 VIDE ANN-A
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 3.3.2015 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONAL INCREMENTS
AS PER ANN-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.01.2022,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard Shri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior
Advocate, for petitioner and Shri. C.N. Mahadeshwaran,
learned AGA for first respondent and Shri. Raghavendra S.
Gayathri, learned Advocate for second and third
respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are, petitioner joined the
Judicial Department as I-Grade Stenographer on April 2,
1979 and retired from service on May 31, 2015.
W.P No.33984/2015
He submitted a representation dated November 23, 2012,
to the District Judge, Mysore, for grant of two additional
increments for having completed 25 & 30 years of
continuous service in the same post without any promotion.
It was rejected on February 21, 2015(Annexure-A).
Thereafter, he submitted a representation to the
Government and the High Court on March 3,
2015(Annexure-B). In August 2015, he has filed the instant
writ petition with a prayer inter alia to quash Annexure-A
and consider his representation as per Annexure-B.
Petitioner has subsequently amended the writ petition
seeking quashment of letter dated January 16, 2015 by the
Registrar General, High Court, to the Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Mysuru.
3. Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Advocate
submitted that petitioner has rendered unblemished service
and he is entitled for additional increments. High Court
has rejected the same on the ground that petitioner had
forgone promotion. However, in a similar case that of one
W.P No.33984/2015
Shivarudra, Stenographer working in Labour Court, Mysuru,
additional increments have been granted. This amounts to
gross discrimination. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing
this writ petition.
4. Shri Raghavendra Gayathri, learned Standing
Counsel for the High Court, adverted to letter dated July 30,
2012, written by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru,
to the Principal District Judge, stating that the
stenographers working in that office were not willing to
appear for the test to be conducted for the post of
Judgment Writer. He next adverted to para 6(ii)(f) of
Government order No.FD 12 SRP 2012(VIII), Bangalore,
dated June 14, 2012 and submitted that the Government
Servants who voluntarily forego their promotion are not
entitled for additional increments.
5. I have carefully considered rival contentions and
perused the records.
W.P No.33984/2015
6. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner was
not willing to appear for the test for the next post of
Judgment Writer. The grant of additional increment is
governed by the Government Order dated June 14, 2012.
The order is not made applicable to those mentioned in
Clause-6(ii). Clause 6(ii)(f) deals with such officials who
voluntarily forego their promotion.
7. It was argued by Shri. Rajendra Prasad that
non-appearance in the test does not mean that the
petitioner had foregone promotion. This argument is
untenable because, the test was admittedly conducted for
promoting Stenographers as Judgment Writers and the
petitioner was not willing to take the test. Without
appearing for the test, he would not be entitled for
promotion. Therefore, refusal to take test amounts to
foregoing the promotion. Further, the said Government
Order is not challenged.
W.P No.33984/2015
8. The next contention urged by Shri Rajendra
Prasad is that the benefit of additional increment has been
given in the case of one Shivarudra and petitioner is also
entitled for the same benefit. It is settled that the ground
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not available
to enforce an illegal act.
9. In view of the above, this writ petition is devoid
of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
