Partly allowed

S N Haveri v. the General Manager (Administrative and Hrd)

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2012WP/20570/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition in part. It set aside the endorsement dated 23.12.2002 issued by the first respondent due to total non-compliance with principles of natural justice and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement/communication dated 23.12.2002 issued by the first respondent is set aside; the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

S N Haveri Vs the General Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH DHARWAD IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012,

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.20570 OF 2003(S-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Dist: Gadag. Aged about 59 years, S.N. Haven, Sb Nurandappa, R/o Lakshmeshwar Town,

¶9

Petitioner

¶10

(By Shri D.M.Manjunath, Adv.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Cauvery Bhavan, (Administrative and HRD), The General Manager, B angalore. and Appellate Authority,

¶13

¶14

Bangalore.

¶15

1. The Chief Financial Advisor, KPTCL, Cauvery Bhavan,

¶16

Navanagar, Hubli, Hubli Electricity Supply Company, By its Chief Engineer,

¶17

¶18

Executive Engineer, Office of 0 & M division,

¶19

¶20

¶21

Hubli. Hubli Electricity Supply Company,

¶22

Division, Haven. 5. Jilla panchayat Engineering Assistant Executive Engineer,

¶23

Respondents

¶24

R5 — served and un-represented) (By Shri Shivaraj P Mudhol, Adv. for Ri to R4,

¶25

¶26

the the This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 of India, Praying to & 227 of quash endorsement! communication dated 23.12.2002 issued by Constitution Ri vide Ann-D.

¶27

This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

1 to 4 to pay the pension to him, by taking into consideration the service rendered by him 23rd December 2002, issued by first respondent vide Further, he has sought for a direction, directing respondents Petitioner in this case has assailed the correctness Annexure D. as a local candidate from 09/12/1968 to 19/10/1969, in the Public Works Department vide Annexure A. or otherwise of the endorsement/communication dated

¶30

¶31

of pension. 2. 9/12/1968 to 19/10/1969, for the purpose of fixation 9th December 19th 9th January respondent onl7th October 1969, as Second Division Assistant /Junior Assistant. Panchayat attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 28th candidate necessary circumstances, requesting Department to take into consideration the period of February 2001. Prior to his retirement, he had made an rendered as these petitioner made a representation dated 7th May 2001, application the petition 2001, Under October 1969 in Public Works Department, office of the Engineering Haven.. with the respondent, he rendered service as a Second was forwarded to the second respondent for taking services action. him he joined the Prior to entry into service service The oniy grievance of the petitioner in this 1968 local Division Assistant from Division, from The said representation of the petitioner is that, Zilla on vide Annexure A, to consider the period of his service On to by of the first

¶32

¶33

not considered, he made another representation dated as the service rendered by him as local candidate was not regularized. petitioner, the clarification from the fifth respondent with regard to the his representation and without application of mind, the December 2002, with service Since local candidate on Being aggrieved The fifth by is issued to the to all vide Annexure by the of of the D, 9th April 2001 ride Annexure B. particulars respondent respondent representation appointment in the office of the first respondent. furnished rendered as local candidate for the purpose of fixing rendered petitioner was petitioner 5th the the fourth sought prior his the the September 2001, vide Annexure C. without considering impugned endorsement cum communication dated 23’’ pension. Further, consequent upon the representation regard to the service rendered by the petitioner as a petitioner, stating that his request cannot be considered impugned

¶34

¶35

petitioner has presented this writ petition. communication cum endorsement, as referred above,

¶36

petition the the non the same compliance Annexure itself without going into further merits or demerits of petitioner’s case. cum December 2002 writ Therefore, in affording face be It is on vide of I have gone through the grounds urged in the view to for of of of non of of the principles of natural justice, 3. 23rd D. that D has sustained and is liable to be rejected at the threshold perused endorsement memorandum and issued and reasonable cannot hearing and without considering the representation, in opportunity hearing impugned endorsement/communication vide Annexure manifest communication unilaterally, without affording reasonable opportunity of petitioner dated the the total non compliance of the principles of natural justice. impugned communication impugned been

¶37

/ 21

¶38

¶39

the case, the writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed in part. In the light of the facts and circumstances of

¶40

endorsement / communication dated 23rd December 2002 bearing The impugned

¶41

/2002-03 vide Annexure D issued by first respondent is hereby set aside.

¶42

matter stands remitted back first The to

¶43

to justice and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate hearing reasonable orders opportunity petitioner, in compliance of the principles of natural accordance after possible. with affording in law, of

¶44

JUDGE Sd!

¶45

BMV*

S N Haveri v. the General Manager (Administrative and Hrd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S N Haveri v. the General Manager (Administrative and Hrd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Hidkal Dam Vs Ganapati Kadappa Kumbar

R S Kayi S/O Sodalingappa Vs Bijapur Grameena Bank Rep by Its Chairman

Govinda Ranga Rao Kulkarni Vs Bijapur Grameena Bank Rep by Its Chairman

Laxmana Vs the Commissioner City Municipality

Ratnavva Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

Vinayaka Murlidhara Joshi Vs the Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission