- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38248-DB WP No. 8802 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 8802 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S. PUSHPAVATHI, W/O. PARAMESHWAR H., RETIRED AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, AGED 71 YEARS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE MANGALORE, R/AT 'DEVIPRASAD' BEHIND S.P. OFFICE, BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.M. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSURU DIVISION MYSURU - 570 001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38248-DB WP No. 8802 of 2022 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE - 575 001. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE SUB DIVISION MANGALORE - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2021 PASSED IN A.No.5107/2018 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE- C AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri P.M. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The applicant in Application No.5107 of 2018 is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38248-DB WP No. 8802 of 2022 challenging the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 3. The petitioner joined the services as Second Division Assistant (SDA) in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru. Another candidate, Smt. B. Pushpa, joined the services as SDA and was subsequently promoted to First Division Assistant (FDA) on 23.11.1992. Respondent No.3 promoted Smt. B. Pushpa to the post of Sheristedar on 24.02.2006. The petitioner submitted representations seeking consideration for promotion to the post of Sheristedar. Respondent No.3 recommended the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Sheristedar on 21.02.2007. While the recommendations were under consideration, the petitioner retired from service as FDA on 31.12.2010. 3.1 Following retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No.2 and thereafter filed Application No.27 of 2012 before the Tribunal, seeking proforma promotion to the cadre of Sheristedar from the date on which her junior was promoted. The Tribunal, by its order - - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38248-DB WP No. 8802 of 2022 dated 18.08.2016, directed consideration of the petitioner’s representation. However, the authorities, without considering the representation, by endorsement dated 23.06.2017, rejected the request on the ground that the petitioner had retired from service. The petitioner subsequently challenged the said endorsement in Application No.5107 of 2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, rejected the application for various reasons, including delay in adjudicating the petitioner’s claim. 4. Sri P.M. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that both the petitioner and Smt. B. Pushpa were promoted to the post of FDA on 23.11.1992. Learned counsel further submits that the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of FDA was 585, whereas the seniority of Smt. B. Pushpa was 612. He contends that Smt. B. Pushpa, who was junior in the cadre, was promoted to the post of Sheristedar on 24.02.2006. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s representations were considered and recommendations were made for her promotion to the cadre of Sheristedar. During the consideration of these recommendations, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation. Learned counsel contends that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38248-DB WP No. 8802 of 2022 Tribunal, instead of examining the matter on merits, committed an error in rejecting the application on the ground of delay in agitating the petitioner’s claim, without taking into account the representations submitted and the recommendations made thereafter for the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Sheristedar. 5. Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to promotion after her retirement. Learned Additional Government Advocate contends that, in view of the said submission, the order of the Tribunal is justified. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers filed in the writ petition. 7. The point that requires consideration by this Court is: "Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Sheristedar?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38248-DB WP No. 8802 of 2022 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and Smt. B. Pushpa were promoted to the post of FDA on 23.11.1992. The seniority list further indicates that the petitioner’s seniority is 585, whereas the seniority of Smt. B. Pushpa is 612. It is also not in dispute that both belong to the Scheduled Caste. Smt. B. Pushpa, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted on 24.02.2006, when the petitioner was still in service. The request made by the petitioner was under active consideration, and recommendations were made to the competent authorities for her promotion. The petitioner had, therefore, acquired a right to promotion while in service. Further, when a junior to the petitioner was promoted in 2006, and the petitioner retired four years thereafter, she is entitled to promotion from the date on which her junior was promoted. In the present case, the petitioner’s junior was promoted on 24.02.2006, and, accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to promotion from that date. The Tribunal, without considering these aspects, rejected the application on mere technicalities. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, not sustainable, and we are inclined to entertain this petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38248-DB WP No. 8802 of 2022 9. Accordingly, the following order is passed: Order (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The respondent-authorities are directed to consider promotion of the petitioner to the post of Sheristedar from the date when her junior is promoted. Accordingly, revise the pension and pensionary benefits. The petitioner would be entitled to notional benefits and would not be entitled for any arrears. (iii) The above exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of production of copy of this order or from the date of uploading of this order in the official website of this Court, whichever is earlier. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36