Karnataka University v. Shri Sharanappa S/O. Mahalingappa Padaganur

NC:(2025:KHC-D:17612-DB( WA(No.(100509(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA,(AT(DHARWAD(

THDATED(THIS(THE(8 (DAY(OF(DECEMBER,(2025(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(G(PANDIT(

(AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MRS(JUSTICE(GEETHA(K.B.(

WRIT(APPEAL(NO.(100509(OF(2025((S-R)(

BETWEEN:((

( KARNATAKA,UNIVERSITY, BY,ITS,REGISTRAR,

PAVATE,NAGAR,,DHARWAD-580001., …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI,IRANAGOUDA,K.,KABBUR,,ADVOCATE),

, AND:( (

SHRI,SHARANAPPA,,

Digitallytisigned S/O.,MAHALINGAPPA,PADAGANUR, by0BHARATHI0H AGE:,62,YEARS,,OCC.,SENIOR,ASSISTANT, M Location:0HIGH R/O.,NEELAVENI,BUILDING,, COURT0OF THKARNATAKA 10 ,CROSS,,SAPTAPUR,,DHARWAD-580001., DHARWAD BENCH …RESPONDENT, Date: 2025.12.19 (BY,SRI,RAJASHEKAR,BURJI,,ADVOCATE), 17:07:470+0530 , , THIS,WRIT,APPEAL,IS,FILED,U/S.4,OF,KARNATAKA,HIGH, COURT, ACT,, 1961,, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 21.02.2025,, PASSED, BY, THE, LEARNED, SINGLE, JUDGE,IN,WRIT,PETITION,NO.62922/2011,(S-R),FILED,BY,THE, APPELLANT,, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW, WRIT, PETITION, NO.62922/2011,(S-R)., ,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This is the appeal filed by the respondent/University under Section 4 of Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961, questioning the order passed in WP No.62922/2011 dated

21.02.2025.

¶2The parties would be referred with their ranks as they were in writ petition, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶3The appellant was respondent and respondent was petitioner before the learned single judge. The petitioner has filed a writ petition praying for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the endorsements dated 18.05.2010 and

18.01.2011 issued by the respondent as per Annexure-'A' and 'B' respectively; writ of mandamus in the nature of

direction to the respondents to re-fix his deemed date of promotion in the post of Assistant Office Superintendent with effect from 05.06.1999 and consequently to refix the pay and pension accordingly and release all arrears of pay and pension to petitioner.

¶4The brief facts of the case of petitioner are that the petitioner joined as Junior Clerk with respondent-Karnataka University in Accounts Section on

08.12.1969. On completion of 19 years of his service he was promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from 25.06.1988. In terms of the law, he was eligible to be promoted to the higher cadre as Assistant Office Superintendent. Though he was found to be eligible, he was placed an independent charge on

05.06.1999, but regular promotion was not given. He retired from said post on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.05.2006. Later, the regular promotion in the cadre of Assistant Office Superintendent was rearranged in terms of the order dated 08.01.2010 as a result of which petitioner is promoted to the Assistant Office

Superintendent with effect from 04.03.2001. However he has given representation to consider it from the date of he was placed independent charge i.e. from 05.06.1999. His latest representation is on 27.11.2010, which was rejected on 18.01.2011. After such rejection, he approached this Court by filing the writ petition. It was allowed on the ground that he was given with independent charge of said post from 05.06.1999 onwards.

¶5Aggrieved by allowing the petition, the respondent/University approached this Court.

¶6Learned Counsel for appellant Sri.Iranagouda K. Kabbur would submit that the petitioner was not at all given promotion from 05.06.1999, but promotion was given only with effect from 04.03.2001, and now he cannot contend that he should be granted benefits from the date on which he has placed in independent charge. It was only a temporary in-charge arrangement and that will not give any right to him.

¶7Learned counsel for respondent Sri Rajashekar Burji would submit that as the petitioner/appellant has worked in independent charge since from

05.06.1999 till his retirement, his promotion date is to be considered from

05.06.1999. In this regard, he relied upon the Circular dated 28.08.1983 wherein it is stated that if the employee is in independent charge of the higher post, and worked in that post, then he is entitled for promotion retrospectively from said date. Thus, the appellant was qualified as on

05.06.1999 itself to the promotional post. Hence, prayed for rejection of the appeal by confirming the order passed in the writ petition.

¶8Having heard the arguments of both sides and verifying the writ appeal papers, the only point that would arise for consideration is "Whether the order of learned single Judge requires interference?"

¶9Our finding on the above point is in 'Negative' for the following reasons:

The appellant was given an independent charge of Assistant Office Superintendent from 05.06.1999 till he retires from the job is not in dispute. According to the appellant, if the petitioner is given promotion with effect from 05.06.1999, then other senior employees who have to be considered first based on their seniority would be affected and seniority of other employees cannot be overlooked.

¶10To substantiate it, the appellant has not produced any material that appellant is junior to others as on 05.06.1999 when the independent charge was given to him.

¶11Rule 32 of KCSR (for short 'the Rules') empowers the employer to place an employee under independent charge. It reads as follows: "Instead of appointing a Government servant to officiate, it is also permissible to appoint him to be in charge of the

current duties of a vacant post. In such a case a "charge allowance" (additional pay) is payable as specified in Rule

68."

¶12Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted his arguments that as per Rule 32, the appellant was only entitled for charge allowance and not for promotion with effect from 05.06.1999. However, it is to be noted here that Rule 2 of KCS(PPP)Rules which deals with promotion reads as follows:-"2. Promotion.-Promotion of a civil servant may be made with effect from a retrospective date.-

(1) if his claim for promotion.-

(a) was withheld on account of disciplinary proceeding or criminal Prosecution of both pending against him and he is exonerated or acquitted subsequently, or

(b) was not considered on the ground that he was working in some other department on deputation or otherwise; or

(c) was not considered on the ground that he was wrongly or incorrectly described in the provisional or final inter-State Seniority List or gradation list; (or)

(d) was passed over on account of adverse remarks in his Confidential Reports which were expunged subsequently.

(2) If, while operating the gradation list or the provisional inter-State Seniority List or any other interstate Seniority List not being a final one, he was not considered for promotion for no justifiable reason xxxxx or

(3) If, while being eligible according to his seniority in the list that was in force and otherwise fit for promotion according to Cadre and Recruitment Rules he had only been placed in independent charge of the post by the Competent Authority and has discharged the duties of the said post:" (Emphasis supplied)

¶13The plain reading of this Rule 2(3) made it clear that if the employee is placed in independent charge of the post by the competent authority and has discharged the duty of the post; then definitely he is entitled for promotion with retrospective effect from the said date.

¶14Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that considering the said Rule, already promotion was given effect from 04.08.1999 instead of

30.09.2003 to one Smt.M.V.Kanvali as per Annexure-H. Thus, when one of the employees was given promotion as she was in independent charge of the post with retrospective effect; then it has to be extended to the petitioner also. Even, the Circular of the Government as per Annexure-R2 dated 20.08.1983 also made it very clear that if any employee is in independent charge then he is entitled

for promotion with retrospective effect i.e., from the date on which he assumes independent charge of that post.

¶15In the Karnataka University Staff Recruitment Statute as per Annexure-R4 at Sl.No.11, it is mentioned as below:-

¶11Assistant office Superintendent

By promotion assistant and stenographers in the ratio of 8:1, i.e., in a cycle of nine vacancies every sixth vacancy shall be filled by promotion of a stenographer. If no suitable qualified stenographer is available for promotion that vacancy shall be filed by promotion of Sr. assistant. Must have put in three years service in the Cadre Sr. assistant/Stenographers Note: stenogrphers should as far possible be given an opportunity to work as Assistant for one year before they become eligible for promotion as Assistant Office Superintendent.

¶16It is a fact that the petitioner was promoted to Senior Assistant with effect from 25.06.1988 and thus in law, he was eligible to be promoted to the higher cadre as Assistant Office Superintendent and he has completed said period of 3 years also.

¶17Under these circumstances, the contention of the University that it is only an in-charge arrangement with charge allowance which will not give any right to the employee is not acceptable one.

¶18Thus, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER The Writ Appeal is dismissed. Pending applications if any are disposed off as not surviving for consideration.

Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

HMB Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36