L NAGARAJU 5/0 LATE LINGAIAH GENERAL MANAGER PUBLIC RELATIONS KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJIANAGAR BANGALORE - 44 Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE SMALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for a direction to the respondents -1, 2 and 5 to give effect to the order dated 28.8.2004 produced at Annexure -Missued by respondent No. 5 creating a post of General Manager (Industrial Estates) retrospectively w.e.f. 22.2.1999 and promoting the petitioner with retrospective effect to the said post of General Manager (Industrial Estates) w.e.f. 22.2.1999. Brief facts as unfolded by the petitioner are, that the petitioner was appointed as a Chief Manager as against the backlog on 23.2.1991, however, as the fourth Respondent in this writ petition filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 5123/1991, questioning the appointment of the petitioner as a Chief Manager, petitioner was not permitted to report to the duty. The fourth respondent was working as a Deputy Chief Manager and had questioned the appointment of the petitioner. Similarly, one Omkarappa had also filed W.P. No. 6410/1991. The writ petition filed by fourth respondent was disposed of, accordingly, the fourth respondent was promoted to the post of Chief Manager. In view of the disposal of the writ petition and promotion of the respondent No. 4, the petitioner was permitted to the report to the duty as a Chief Manager in the Corporation on 09.03.1994 retrospectively with effect from 23.02.1991. On 09.12.1998, respondent published the seniority list of Chief Manager and in the seniority petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 4. However, the said seniority was subject to a writ petition pending in W.P. No. 6410/1991 filed by one Omkarappa.

(2.) ON 22.02.1999, one S.R. Prahlada Rao, who was shown at Sl. No. 1 in the seniority list, was promoted to the post of General Manager. W.P. No. 6410/1991 came to he disposed of by order dated 08.07.1999 with a direction that, Omkarappa shall be appointed as a Chief Manager, however, the petitioner was not disturbed from the post of Chief Manager, at the same time, Omkarappa was also directed to be appointed as a Chief Manager. As against the said order, the Corporation filed a Writ Appeal. The said writ appeal came to be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and in the meanwhile, the fourth respondent was also promoted to the post of Chief General Manager on 17.10.2002.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that, in the final seniority list, petitioner is shown at Sl. No. 7 whereas Prahlada Rao was shown at Sl. No. 12 The said seniority list was challenged by the fourth respondent and others in W.P.Nos.26342 -43/2004, however, the said writ petitions were also dismissed by order dated 23.03.2011. In view of the fixation of seniority of the Chief Managers, it was clear that, this petitioner was senior to Prahlada Rao, and was eligible for promotion to the post of General Manager, even before the Prahlad Rao was promoted. Thus, at least what was required was that the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of General Manager as on the date of promotion of Prahlada Rao. The respondent - Board having realized the mistake, and to set right the injustice caused to the petitioner, Board by its resolution decided to promote the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 22.2.1999 to the post of General Manager. Same reads as under: