GOVINDARAJ SETTY S Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
LAWS(KAR)-1966-9-13
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on September 20,1966

GOVINDARAJ SETTY (S.) Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

M P RAGHAVAN NAIR VS. STATE INSURANCE OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-1970-12-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Somnath Ayyar, J. - (1.)The petitioner was a first division clerk in the Department of Industries and Commerce in the former State of Mysore, in which, in the year 1941, a separate Department of Labour was constituted. By an order made by the State Government on October 17, 1949, the proposal of the Commissioner of Labour in that separated Labour Department that the petitioner and another should be absorbed as stenographers in that department was sanctioned. The petitioner continued as such stenographer until he was confirmed as such on October 27, 1956, although the confirmation was made retrospective with effect from 17 October 1949.
(2.)But when the petitioner was working as a stenographer in the Labour Department, which was part of the Department of Industries and Commerce, quite a few persons who were junior to him and who held the post of a first division clerk, were promoted as Assistant Commissioners of Labour. The petitioner then made representations against this supersession but was informed by the Commissioner of Labour in the year 1953, that his request for promotion had been "turned down" by the Government.
(3.)But the matter did not rest there, since the petitioner persisted in his representation against his unjust supersession, and, on at least three occasions, three successive Commissioners of Labour gave their complete support to those representations made by him. Sri M. S. Mecci, Sri K. R. Marudeva Gowda and Sri C. S. Seshadri are those three Commissioners of Labour who made a forceful recommendation to the State Government that the petitioner should also be promoted. The first communication was by Sri Mecci, on July 7, 1958, in which he pointed out that according to the gradation list which was prepared in the year 1950, after the transfer of a certain Sri T. A. Sheriff to the Department of Industries and Commerce, the petitioner's rank was the first in the concerned gradation list but that while he was not promoted to the post of an Assistant Commissioner, his juniors were so promoted sometime during the year 1946. Sri Mecci also pointed out that his predecessor had recommended to the Government as early as in January, 1951 that the petitioner who was unjustly refused promotion, should also be given a promotion and that there was a similar recommendation once again in February 1953.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.