- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18094 WP No. 10141 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10141 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY B.A. S/O. SRI ANANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT AND RESIDING AT NO.145, 2ND CROSS, 7TH MAIN, AMAYARU EXTENSION ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3; SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18094 WP No. 10141 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.01.2025 SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ON 10.01.2025 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND S AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 06.01.2025. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to fix the scale of pay as applicable to Group 'C' employee and to pay the arrears of salary from the date of appointment till the date of fixation of his salary as applicable to the Office Assistant and all consequential financial and seniority benefits. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Yelahanka City Municipal Council on 14.12.2000. Though, he was appointed as a Clerk which is a Group 'C' post, he was paid salary applicable to Group 'D' post, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18094 WP No. 10141 of 2025 by the erstwhile City Municipal Council. He therefore, submitted a representation dated 22.08.2001 to the Commissioner of Yelahanka City Municipal Council to pay salary applicable to Group 'C' employee from the date of his appointment. The representation was not considered, which compelled him to file one more representation on 25.09.2023. Thereafter, the City Municipal Corporations were merged into Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP). Since the claim of the petitioner was not considered by the erstwhile City Municipal Council, he made a representation dated 25.12.2008 again seeking for the payment of salary applicable to a Group 'C' employee. (ii) An office order was issued by BBMP, Byatarayanpura zone posting the petitioner as Office Assistant at Help Centre of Vidyaranyapura. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 passed the orders to merge the employees of the erstwhile City Municipal Councils and Town Municipal Councils into BBMP. Further, it is contended that in Yelahanka Zone Group 'D' employees list, his name is found at Sl.No.82. He contends that the petitioner was thereafter posted at office of BBMP, Defence colony in terms of an order dated 06.03.2009. Thereafter, he was posted to work as a Second - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18094 WP No. 10141 of 2025 Division Assistant in terms of an order dated 28.03.2012. Thereafter, BBMP vide its order dated 02.02.2021, had declared that post of Office Assistant in the erstwhile grama panchayat is equal to the Second Division Assistant in BBMP. (iii) He contends that the State Government accepted the proceedings of the respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner and ordered for absorption of employees of erstwhile local bodies into BBMP. Therefore, he contends that he became the permanent employee of BBMP. He thereafter made a representation dated 08.12.2022 seeking for the salary payable to a Group 'C' employee. He contends that the Chief Commissioner of BBMP, passed an order dated 09.02.2023 appointing the petitioner as Group 'D' employee and continued the services of the petitioner as Office Assistant. (iv) The petitioner contends that his earlier representations were not considered by the authority which compelled him to submit one more representation dated 06.01.2025 to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. He contends that his representations were not considered and therefore he seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18094 WP No. 10141 of 2025 representations and grant him the benefit of salary payable to Group 'C' employee. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contention and submitted that the petitioner was appointed as the Clerk in the office of erstwhile City Municipal Council which was a Group 'C' post and therefore, he was entitled to salary payable to a Group 'C' post. Hence, he submits that the respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him the benefit of scale applicable to a Group 'C' post. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the representations of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law and if the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the salary payable to a Group 'C' post, appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if the respondent No.2 considers the same and recommends that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the salary payable to Group 'C' post, the respondent No.1 shall - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18094 WP No. 10141 of 2025 consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2025 in accordance with law. This shall be complied within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once the respondent No.2 considers the representations and if it is favourable to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. In view of disposal of main appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15