- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 108472 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHIVAYOGI S/O. ANAND RAO BENNUR AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED SHIRESTEDAR, R/O: MASUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER THE DISTRICT And SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 28.01.2016 BRG.NO.ADMINISTRATION:254/2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.Administration:254/2016 dated 28.01.2016 in terms of which, his application for grant of stagnation increment was refused during the year 2016. 2. The petitioner contends that he was working as a Shirestedar at the office of the respondent No.1. He contends that he was eligible for stagnation increment during the year 2016 and therefore made a request for grant of increment. The Administrative Shirestedar of respondent No.1 submitted a representation stating that the annual performance report of the petitioner for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 were 'good', whereas, the annual performance report for the year 2014-2015 was 'average' and recommended for rejection of petitioner's application for grant of stagnation increment. Based on the same, the respondent No.1 passed an order denying the stagnation increment. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 communicated the rejection on 28.01.2016. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017 He contends that the annual performance report for the year 2014-2015 was not communicated to him and therefore, he had no opportunity to challenge the same. He contends that he had a very good performance rating in the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and there was no justification in granting an average rating during the year 2014-2015. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the stagnation increment as there were no promotional avenues available and the performance report for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 showed that the petitioner was eligible to be promoted. However, in so far as the annual performance report for the year 2014-2015, the rating was reduced to 'average' and he was not notified for the same. He contends that if the petitioner was notified of the reduced rating in the annual performance report for the year 2014-15, he would have taken appropriate steps for rectification of annual performance report. He contends that a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.64656/2011 had held that the performance recorded as average in the annual performance - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017 report is not adverse in nature and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of stagnation increment. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that the stagnation increment is granted only in cases where a candidate is eligible to be promoted, but there are no vacancies. He contends that the rating of the performance of the candidate for the past 05 years, would be taken into consideration for grant of stagnation increment. He contends that in case of the petitioner his performance for the year 2014-2015, was recorded as "average" in the annual performance report and therefore, he was not entitled for stagnation increment. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. It is seen from the annual performance of the petitioner for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 that his performance was rated as 'good' by the respondent No.1. However for the year 2014-2015, the performance is reduced to 'average'. However this does not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017 amount to an adverse remark, as it does not act as a disqualification for the petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.64656/2011 held that a person who had worked in the department for several decades and who had a good rating in the previous years, cannot be downgraded to an average performer. It was also held that the authority assessing the performance of a candidate, has to specify the basis for arriving at the rating of average and also spell out the areas in which the candidate has to improve. 7. In the case on hand, except stating that the performance of the petitioner during the year 2014-2015 was 'average', nothing was mentioned in the annual performance report as to how and why the track record of the petitioner was treated as 'average'. 8. In that view of the matter, the respondents were not justified in not granting the stagnation increment payable to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondents in denying the stagnation increment to the petitioner is set aside. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5637 WP No. 108472 of 2017 The respondents are directed to grant the stagnation increment payable to the petitioner and consequently grant all consequential benefits in accordance with law. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 19 Sl No.: 18