Single Judge Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a compulsory retirement order, holding it liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay, laches, acquiescence, and receipt of terminal benefits despite lack of public interest disclosure.
Petition is dismissed on grounds of delay, laches, and acquiescence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI
WRIT PETITION NO.5842/2012(S-R)
BETWEEN :
SRI SOMASHEKAR S/O GUIRUBASAYYA KASHIMATH AGED 59 YEARS, R/A # 1762, 7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 065
...PETITIONER
( BY SRI. NIKHIL S K, ADV.,)
AND :
...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, HCGP)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.LAW 299 LAC 2005 DTD.22.5.2006 AT ANNEX-A, PASSED BY THE R1 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER & ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRLIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has called in question the notification issued by respondent No.1 dated 22.05.2006 produced at Annexure A, wherein, the petitioner and others were ordered for compulsory retirement under the provisions of sub rule (4) of Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958.
A does not disclose any public interest. He also submits that, notice of three months is necessary under the proviso to the said rule and this Court,in W.P. No.30240/2009 by order dated 03.01.2012, had
3
quashed the similar order of compulsory retirement.
4
writ petition and after the said writ petitioner succeeded in the writ petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Further, for compulsory retirement, in lieu of three months notice, three months salary could be paid. Petitioner has received three months salary in lieu of three months notice. Petitioner in pursuance of the same, has already received the terminal benefits and is acquiesced of the same, however at a belated stage, this writ petition is filed. Even otherwise, the decision at Annexure A is based on public interest.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
SD/JUDGE
sma
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging compulsory retirement under Karnataka Civil Services Rules is liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches.
Whether the petitioner availed terminal benefits before filing the present petition indicating acquiescence.
Whether the compulsory retirement was based on public interest under Rule 285(4).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI SOMASHEKAR S/O GUIRUBASAYYA KASHIMATH
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SUBHASH B. ADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court