Karnataka High Court
Shri Narahari M V vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 1 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4397
WP No. 42776 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 42776 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. NARAHARI M.V,
S/O LATE VITTALA NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 013.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
by V KRISHNA
N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER &
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4397
WP No. 42776 of 2012
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.6.12 MARKED AT ANN-
F, ISSUED BY THE R2 AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY,
IRRATIONAL, DISCRIMINATORY & UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner,
feeling aggrieved by the endorsement issued by
respondent No.2, while rejecting the petitioner's request
for proper fixation of pay at par with the pay scale
extended to second division assistants and sub-registrars.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner joined the service of the erstwhile
Bangalore City Corporation on 09.12.1976. The petitioner
submitted a representation to the respondents-corporation
by contending that he was designated as a third division
clerk on 18.08.1976 and the post of third division clerk is a
class-IV post in the pay scale of Rs.70-100/-. He is also
entitled for the pay scale which is extended to the
assistant sub-registrars and second division assistants in
NC: 2024:KHC:4397
terms of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.1 to
5/1998. The petitioner's representation is rejected by the
respondents, vide endorsement dated 16.02.2012,
Annexure-F.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
4. The petitioner is seeking re-fixation of the pay
scale based on judgment rendered in W.P.Nos.1 to
5/1998. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's entry into
service was in the cadre of a third division clerk. This
Court issued a mandamus to upgrade the pay scale of
Rs.90-200/- to the employees in the cadre of assistant
sub-registrars. If this factual matrix is admitted, the
petitioner, who was in the cadre of a third division clerk,
cannot seek pay scale determined in the cadre of assistant
sub-registrar. Therefore, the respondents-corporation was
justified in rejecting the representation submitted by the
petitioner. It is also borne out from the records that the
petitioner, though serving as a third division clerk, was
NC: 2024:KHC:4397
getting a higher pay scale. Even on this count, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief at the hands of this
Court. The endorsement issued by the respondents-
corporation does not suffer from any infirmities. No
indulgence is warranted. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
