Smt S V Prathima v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 16661 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN:

SMT S V PRATHIMA W/O KARADIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES 2ND FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR BUS STAND K H ROAD BANGALORE - 560027 RESIDING AT NO 434/2, 8TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, BEML V PHASE R R NAGAR BANGALORE - 560098 …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SATISH CHANDRA Y S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SAARIGE BHAVANA K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560027

2. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRASNPORT CORPORATION

Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560027

¶3THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER AND FINANCIAL AUDITOR B M T C CENTRAL OFFICES K H ROAD BANGALORE - 560027 …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 R1 SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING No.Be.Ma.Na.Sa.KeKa/Le Pa/Vethana/468/2021-22 DATED 04.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-M AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE ANNUAL INCREMENT WITH EFFECT FROM

25.01.2011 WITH CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND CONTINUE TO EXTEND THE SAME.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction or any other appropriate writ setting aside endorsement bearing No.Be.Ma.Na.Sa/KeKa/Le

Pa/Vethana/468/2021-22 dated 4/8/2021 issued by the 3rd respondent ANNEXURE M and direct the respondents to extend the annual increment with effect from 25-1-2011 with consequential benefits and continue to extend the same. b) Pass such other order/orders in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity."

¶2Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 03.02.2012 requesting to sanction annual increment regularly in the month of January. Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 10/13.07.2012 informing that in view of leave granted to him without wages, the increment is postponed to August. On

18.06.2013, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding postponement of her annual increment. The respondents-Corporation has issued circular dated 17.07.2013 and the same was forwarded through a letter dated 30.07.2013. The said circular dated

17.07.2013 has no application to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in WP No. 29069 of 2014 against the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the representation and challenging the endorsement dated 10/13.07.2012. This Court, vide order dated 29.03.2021, disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to re-consider the representation of the petitioner dated

03.05.2012 in accordance with law and pass appropriate order within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid petition, the respondents-Corporation has issued the impugned endorsement dated 04.08.2021 vide Annexure-M. The respondents, without considering the contents of the representation dated 03.05.2012, has issued the impugned endorsement. Hence, this petition.

¶3The respondents filed a statement of objections contending that, the respondents have considered the representation dated 03.05.2012 and issued the impugned

endorsement. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondents-Corporation is in accordance with law. Hence, pray to dismiss the writ petition.

¶4Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this Court has directed the respondents to re-consider the representation dated 03.05.2012 and pass appropriate order. He submits that, the respondents-Corporation, without considering the representation in a proper manner, has issued the impugned endorsement. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondents-Corporation is cryptic and without application of mind. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶6Learned counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that, the respondents will re-consider the representation dated

03.05.2012 submitted by

petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶7Perused records and considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶8It is an undisputed fact that, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents for sanction of annual increment regularly in the month of January. The respondents issued an endorsement dated 10/13.07.2012 rejecting representation of petitioner and postponed the increment to the August. The petitioner approached this Court in WP No. 29069 of 2014. This Court, vide order dated 29.03.2021, disposed of the writ petition by quashing endorsement dated 10/13.07.2012 and directed the respondents to re-consider the representation of the petitioner dated

03.05.2012 within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents

have issued the impugned endorsement dated 04.08.2021 vide Annexure-M.

¶9From perusal of impugned endorsement, the respondents have not assigned any reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner and also did not consider the findings recorded by this Court in the earlier petition in WP No. 29069 of 2014.

¶10Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents will re-consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in-detail in accordance with law.

¶11In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed;

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 04.08.2021 issued by the respondents vide Annexure-M is hereby quashed; iii. The respondents are directed to re-consider the representation dated 03.05.2012 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; iv. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43