IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25^TH 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, 4^TH 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)

Digitally signed by THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 RAKESH S HARIHAR OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26-06-2024 in bearing no.

Dharwad £ÀA.JZïrJA¹/ E.J¸ï.n

20/01/ /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:

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 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.

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