Karnataka High Court
Dr. B. G. Raghavendra Prasad vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC:2023:KHC:45792-DB
WA No. 1089 of 2022
C/W WA No. 1216 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1089 OF 2022 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2022 (S-RES)
IN W.A.NO.1089/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
Digitally signed 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION),
by SHARADA BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
VANI B N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY K S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC:2023:KHC:45792-DB
WA No. 1089 of 2022
C/W WA No. 1216 of 2022
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT47 YEARS,
S/O SRI ERAPPA,
R/A NO 27, J V ARCADE,
GROUND FLOOR, KALPANA CHAWLA ROAD,
RMV EXTENSION, BHOOPASANDRA,
SANJAYAANGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT DATED 23/09/2022, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.14157/2022 AND
ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL.
IN W.A.NO.1216/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. DR. B. G. RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD,
S/O LATE V GANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.170, 1ST BLOCK,
3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
2. S V RAJESH,
S/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
-3-
NC:2023:KHC:45792-DB
WA No. 1089 of 2022
C/W WA No. 1216 of 2022
R/AT NO.480A/1, 16TH CROSS,
IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 098.
3. BASAVARAJ R KABADE
S/O R Y KABADE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.607, A4, YAMUNA BLOCK,
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 047.
4. M LOKESH,
S/O LATE S MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.41, 11TH CROSS,
NEAR BDA COMPLEX,
INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 038.
5. PRAVEEN LINGAIAH,
S/O RAMALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25, 5TH CROSS,
RHCS LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU-560 092.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
-4-
NC:2023:KHC:45792-DB
WA No. 1089 of 2022
C/W WA No. 1216 of 2022
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
4. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
5. SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O SRI ERAPPA,
R/A NO.27, J V ARCADE, GROUND FLOOR,
KALPANA CHAWLA ROAD, R M V EXTENSION,
BHOOPASANDRA, SANJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHWETA KRISHNAPPA., AGA FOR R1 & R4;
SRI. K S MALLIKARJUNA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2 &
R3;
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-14157/2022 AND
ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL ON THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC:2023:KHC:45792-DB
WA No. 1089 of 2022
C/W WA No. 1216 of 2022
JUDGEMENT
These two intra-court appeals seek to call in question
a learned Single Judge's order dated 23.09.2022 whereby
respondent-Sri Krishnappa's W.P.No.14157/2022 (S-RES)
having been favored, the appellant-BBMP is directed to
reckon his services rendered from 1999 to 2010 in the
Department of Technical Education and in Public Works
Department, for the purpose of ranking in the Seniority
List and that "appropriate orders in the administrative side
to be passed within two months...without reopening the
matter or raising any fresh contention".
2. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP
vehemently submits that the reliance of the learned Single
Judge on Rules 252(b) and 224(b) of the Karnataka Civil
Services Rules, 1957 for granting relief to the writ
petitioner is misconceived; the reckoning of previous
service in terms of the said rules is only for the purpose of
fixing the terminal benefits of the civil servants and not for
in-service benefits. Learned Senior Advocate, Sri Udaya
Holla appearing for the private respondents resists the
NC:2023:KHC:45792-DB
appeals making submission in justification of the impugned
order and the reasons on which it has been structured.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter being broadly in agreement with
the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. It is not in
dispute that the private respondent who was the writ
petitioner was in public service under the Government of
Karnataka from 03.03.1999 to 01.06.2010, having been
employed in the Department of Technical Education and
the PWD Department. Rule 252(b) provides that a mere
resignation of employee with proper permission to take up
another appointment would not result in cessation of
service. In other words, it provides for the deemed
continuation of service for all practical purposes. It is not
in dispute that the said respondent had taken proper
permission.
4. The vehement submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants that the service
rendered in the Government Departments has to be
NC:2023:KHC:45792-DB
reckoned in the new employment only for the purpose of
fixation of pension and terminal benefits, does not have
legal support. The text of Rule 252(b) of the KCSR does
not lend credence to such an argument. Even otherwise,
the findings suffered by the appellant-BBMP in the earlier
rounds of litigation between the parties namely,
W.P.No.5903/2015 disposed off on 22.10.2019 in favour of
the writ petitioner. This order on being challenged in
W.A.No.266/2020, the Division Bench vide order dated
31.03.2021 declined to grant indulgence.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Sri Udaya Holla
appearing for the private respondents is more than
justified in drawing our attention to the legal opinion dated
16.09.2020 given by the Principal Secretary, Department
of Law, Government of Karnataka that fully favoured the
claim of the writ petitioner that is private respondents
herein. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that, this opinion
was rendered on the basis of the Judgement dated
12.11.2019 rendered by the other learned Single Judge in
NC:2023:KHC:45792-DB
private respondents W.P.No.5903/2015. The said
judgement as already mentioned above has been upheld
by the Division Bench in writ appeal filed by the BBMP
itself. The underlined principle of Rule 252(b) appears to
be that the services rendered to the State should not go
unrecognized, when the person concerned joins the
employ of other statutory entities such as the BBMP which
provides local governance.
In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,
these appeals being devoid of merits are liable to be and
accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.
A period of three months is granted to the appellant
-BBMP to undertake and accomplish the exercise as
mandated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
order.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb, KPS
