Partly allowed

Smt Najumunissa v. Secretary

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2012WP/41839/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Courts addressed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders attempting salary recovery and directing payment of existing salary without deduction. The Court held that recovery without a hearing for payments spanning 20 years was invalid.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was partly allowed; Annexures-E and F to be implemented only after the petitioner files an objection within 15 days and is heard within three months.

Smt Najumunissa Vs Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.41839/2012(S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT NAJUMUNISSA W/O A.GAFFAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC:TEACHER,

¶9

TMC, BALAWADI TEACHER,

¶10

BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

( BY SRI.N BABU RAO, ADV.,)

¶13

AND :

¶14

1 SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1

¶15

2 DIRECTOR

¶16

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, AMBEDKAR ROAD, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, 9TH FLOOR, BANGALORE-1

¶17

3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 101

¶18

4 PROJECT DIRECTOR ZILLA NAGARABHIVRIDHI,

¶19

¶20

KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR- 563 101

¶21

5 CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 112

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

( BY SMT. MANJULA R KAMADOLLI, HCGP FOR R1-R4; NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH )

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTERS / ORDERS DATED 3.1.2012 AND 23.1.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 4 VIDE ANNEXUREE AND F. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE EXISTING SALARY TO THE PETITIONER WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION AND AS PER THE PRIOR TO REGULARISATION i.e. 30.1.1988 & ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Though the respondent No.5 is not served, however no

¶28

relief is sought against respondent No.5. The impugned orders are passed by respondent Nos.2 and 4. Hence, notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

¶29

¶30

The petitioner has sought for quashing of

¶31

Annexures-E and F on the ground that, her service has been regularised with effect from 30.01.1988 and pay was also fixed prior to the regularisation. However, by the impugned communication dated 03.01.2012 issued by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 is trying to recover the alleged excess payment without even issuing notice to the petitioner.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader submits that, if the petitioner gives representation, it will be considered and appropriate decision will be taken in the matter.

¶33

Since the petitioner has not been heard and now the recovery sought to be made in respect of payment made for last 20 years without hearing the petitioner, hence I find that the petitioner be given opportunity to file her objection.

¶34

Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. Annexures-E and F should be given effect after considering

¶35

¶36

the objection, if any, filed by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner. Petitioner is permitted to file representation/objection within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent No.2 shall consider the same and on hearing the petitioner pass the order in accordance with law, as early as possible but not than three months from the date of receipt of objection from the petitioner.

¶37

If the petitioner fails to file the objection within 15 days of the receipt of this order, respondent No.1 is at liberty to issue endorsement accordingly.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

pmr*

Smt Najumunissa v. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Najumunissa v. Secretary

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

R Ravi S/O Late Ramaswamy Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission

Narendra Kumar S/O Late M Chandrasekhar Vs Thekarnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Sri B B Krishna, Vs the Management of M/S H J S Spun Silk Pvt. Ltd.

M Krishnappa Vs Principal Secretary to Government of

Mr Manjunatha Bhanuvally Vs the Registrar

A v Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka