- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33848 WP No. 18171 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18171 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI T GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O THIMMAIAH R/AT NO.1419,GANESHA TEMPLE INDIRANAGAR NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL-562123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARIKSHIT S S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER BENGALURU-560003. 3. COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (B B M P), HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2: SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33848 WP No. 18171 of 2025 DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO STEP UP THE PAY OF THE PETITIONER WITH THAT OF KMAS PAY SCALE BY CONSIDERING HIS REPRESENTATION DATED 07/12/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 07.12.2018 vide Annexure-E. 2. At the outset, the learned AGA submitted that the petitioner has retired from the service on 31.01.2008. After a lapse of 17 years, he approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to step up his pay to that of the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service pay scale, by considering the representation dated 07.12.2018, vide Annexure-E. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33848 WP No. 18171 of 2025 3. The petitioner has retired from the service in the year 2008. After a lapse of 10 years, he submitted a representation dated 07.12.2018 to respondent No.2 seeking a step-up in pay. Pursuant to his representation, an endorsement dated 04.07.2019 vide Annexure-F, was issued stating that no documents are available, and hence, his case could not be considered. Thereafter, he submitted representations, vide Annexures-H & H1. Since no order was passed on the said representations, he has approached this Court. 4. The Apex Court in the case of The Apex Court in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh, Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Ram Gopal reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225 has held in paragraph No.10 is extracted herein below: “10. Seen from a different perspective also, it is clear that the respondent has shown little concern to the settled legal tenets. Even a civil suit challenging termination of services, if filed by the respondent, would have undoubtedly been barred by limitation in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33848 WP No. 18171 of 2025 1990. In a similar situation, where the appellant belatedly challenged the promotion of his junior(s), this Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22] , held as follows : (SCC p. 154, para 2) “2. … if the appellant was aggrieved by it he should have approached the Court even in the year 1957, after the two representations made by him had failed to produce any result. One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Court questioning that relaxation in the year 1971. … In effect he wants to unscramble a scrambled egg. It is very difficult for the Government to consider whether any relaxation of the rules should have been made in favour of the appellant in the year 1957. The conditions that were prevalent in 1957, cannot be reproduced now. … It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33848 WP No. 18171 of 2025 the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.”” 5. In view of the above, on the ground of delay itself, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25