BENGALURU - 560027 v. (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

K.S.SRINATH S/O LATE K.N.KRISHNA IYANGAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.3020, BEHIND PRAKRUTHI VIDYANIKETHANA SCHOOL, PRASHANTH NAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN - 562101. (BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. …PETITIONER

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101. (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52146 WP No. 9254 of 2021 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. M C. Basavaraju, counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondents, appeared in person.

2. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 14.11.2019 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-E and to direct the second respondent to extend the pay scale of the senior driver as well as the status of the senior driver to the petitioner retrospectively and pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

Suffice it to note that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the esteemed corporation and was working as a Driver. He completed 25 years of service on the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52146 WP No. 9254 of 2021 HC-KAR fifteenth of October 2006. His grievance is that the second respondent has not extended the pay scale of the senior driver, as well as the status of the senior driver retrospectively and has not paid all consequential benefits. It is noted that a delayed representation was submitted by him after thirteen years from the date of completion of 25 years of service, and the same was examined by the corporation. A true copy of the endorsement is furnished along with the writ petition as Annexure-E. A perusal of the same reflects that the petitioner’s request has been rejected, stating that he did not possess the prescribed attendance during his service, and the service punishments were running. I find no grounds to quash the endorsement.

In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to extend the pay scale of the senior driver as well as the status of the senior driver retrospectively and pay all consequential benefits to him. The said request cannot be considered in the writ jurisdiction. The reason is simple. The extension of the benefit of the senior driver pay scale, and the accord of status of a senior driver requires elaborate - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52146 WP No. 9254 of 2021 HC-KAR examination of evidence, the same cannot be done under writ jurisdiction.

As is well known that the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions that demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right. The matters of a large canvas cannot be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the disputed facts have to be investigated to give relief to the petitioner. The law is well settled that the disputed question of fact cannot be investigated under Article 226 of Constitution of India.