- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16296 WP No. 106731 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106731 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. DAVALASAB S/O. SHARRIFSAB BUDIHAL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED HEALTH INSPECTOR, R/O. MIG-99, 4TH CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580032 TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH NARGUND, ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNCIPAL CORPORATION HUBBALLI-580025 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26-06-2024 in bearing no. £ÀA.JZïrJA¹/ £ÀA.JZïrJA¹/ £ÀA.JZïrJA¹/ £ÀA.JZïrJA¹/20/01/E.J¸ï.n E.J¸ï.n E.J¸ï.n E.J¸ï.n/01/2024-25 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-M, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16296 WP No. 106731 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of an endorsement dated 26.06.2024 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of certain benefits i.e., the time bound advancements at 20 years, 25 years and 30 years of completion of service. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Santosh Nargund appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. R.H. Angadi for the respondent. 3. The petitioner joins the service of the respondent – Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation on 11.10.1974 and retires as Junior Sanitary Inspector on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2012. After the retirement of the petitioner springs the first representation on 12.10.2020 for payment of terminal benefits in accordance with law. The petitioner now contends that he was entitled to grant of time scale promotion or time bound advancement for non-promotion for 20 years, 25 years and 30 years respectively. The representation was not considered and therefore had approached - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16296 WP No. 106731 of 2024 this Court. This Court directed consideration of the representation. The consideration has resulted in the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as he was not promoted for about 30 years of his service and was entitled to that time bound advancement at 20 years, 25 years and 30 years. The learned counsel would further contend that the representation was in detail and the right of the petitioner cannot be taken away. 5. The learned counsel Sri. R.H. Angadi appearing for the respondent would refute the submissions of the counsel in contending that the petitioner ought to have agitated during his service and not after his retirement. He retires in the year 2012 for the first time and submits a representation in the year 2020, 8 years after his retirement for a claim that he had lost in service way back in the year 1974 or 1976 or even 1995 or 1996 as the case would be. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner ought to have passed certain departmental examinations during his service for grant of those promotions. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16296 WP No. 106731 of 2024 He has not passed those departmental examinations. Therefore, there is no warrant of consideration. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would join issue to contend that the only departmental examination that he was asked to pass has been cleared and there was no other departmental examination and would seek the petition be allowed and benefits be granted. 7. The petitioner joins the service on 11.10.1974 is a matter of record. The petitioner is then promoted as Senior Health Inspector in the year 1994. The petitioner retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation 29.02.2012 in the cadre of Senior Health Inspector of the Corporation and eight years after retirement submits a representation, the first in line, in the year 2020, contending that he is entitled to certain benefits of the year 1974 to 1974 onwards till the year 1993. As observed, the first representation is on 22.10.2020. The said representation notwithstanding a direction for consideration at the hands of this Court comes to be rejected. The rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16296 WP No. 106731 of 2024 8. As contented by the learned counsel Sri. R.H. Angadi, for the first time, the petitioner submits a claim in the year 2020 for a benefit that ought to have been given in the year 1974 onwards. The reason is non-passing of departmental examination. Whether the departmental examinations were conducted, the petitioner participated, passed or otherwise is too late in the day for this Court to consider, as those are stale claims of close to 40 years. Now the petitioner cannot contend that he must be granted all the benefits that too eight years after retirement. It is trite that the law would protect the diligent and not the indolent. 9. Reference made by the learned counsel for the respondent to the judgment of the Division Bench is apposite. The Division Bench has held as follows “7. Admittedly, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service in the year 1995. To the representation of the petitioner seeking retrospective promotion, the respondent issued endorsement dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-A2), where under it was made clear that the petitioner has forgot his promotion and a person who has forgotten his promotion would not be entitled for promotion and also observing that the petitioner has already retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. The said endorsement is dated 07.07.2011, whereas the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 2012. Admittedly, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16296 WP No. 106731 of 2024 petitioner retired from service in the year 1995 and it is also clear from the records that the petitioner refused the promotion as Lecturer in the year 1986. Subsequently, the petitioner has not agitated with regard to his right for promotion. The petitioner has approached the Tribunal only in the year 2012 after nearly 15 years from the date of his retirement questioning the endorsement dated 07.07.2011. 8. The said endorsement was issued pursuance to the consideration of the representation of the petitioner. Repeated representation without agitating the right, Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes one year limitation from the date of cause of action or from the date of the order or the endorsement depending on the facts of each case. The Tribunal under impugned order rightly observed that the petitioner himself had refused the promotion and the petitioner after rejecting his promotion, cannot seek for fixation of pay in the promoted post subsequently.” 10. In the light of the aforesaid findings, no warrant to interfere with the claim of the petitioner for grant of time bound advancement for completion of 20 years, 25 years and 30 years of service, at the appropriate time is denied, on the sheer delay of the petitioner submitting a representation to the respondent. 11. Finding no merit, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Rsh CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14