Dismissed

Basappa .L.Bavidoddi v. the General Manager and Ors.

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2016WA/200594/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of writ appeals regarding a pension dispute. It declined to enter upon merits but held the court could exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 due to the interest of justice. The appellant was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for his grievance regarding reversion and pension.

What did the court decide?

The appeals are disposed of with liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum (CAT) in respect of his grievance regarding illegal reversion and pensionary benefits.

Basappa .L.Bavidoddi Vs the General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

¶8

WRIT APPEAL Nos.200594-200595/2014

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Basappa L. Bavidoddi Aged 68 years Occupation: Retired Chief Section Supervisor BSNL, Gulbarga Resident of MIG 109 KHB Colony Old Jewargi Road, Gulbarga

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(Shri Venkatesh G., Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Gulbarga Telecom District, Gulbarga – 585 101.

¶15

The Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

¶16

¶17

Karnataka Telecom Circle No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road Ulsoor, Bangalore – 560 008

¶18

Union of India Ministry of Communication Represented by its Secretary Department of Telecommunication Sanchar Bhavan, No.20 Ashoka Road New Delhi – 110 001

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(Shri Prakash Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Shri S.S. Kumman, Advocate for Respondent No.2; & Shri K.M. Ghate, Advocate for Respondent No.3)

¶21

These Writ Appeals are filed Under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the Since Judge in Writ Petition Nos:201860-861/2014 dated 13.08.2014.

¶22

These appeals coming on for hearing this day, ANAND BYRAREDDY J., delivered the following:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Without entering upon the merits of these appeals, the

¶25

appeals are taken up for disposal.

¶26

¶27

The appellant was working as a Chief Section Supervisor and had retired from service as on 2006.

¶28

It transpires that even earlier, there was a reversion order in the year 2002 and since the Central Administrative Tribunal was not conferred with the jurisdiction in dealing with the service dispute between the appellant and the respondents, the appellant was constrained to approach this court by way of filing a writ petition in, W.P.No.13748/2002, which was disposed of by an order dated 14.01.2008. Thereafter, several proceedings have been instituted on the footing that the Central Administrative Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. It was then such jurisdiction was conformed on the Central Administrative Tribunal as early as in the year 2008 itself. Notwithstanding the conferment of such jurisdiction, the appellant had chosen to pursue his remedies before this court under the bonafide impression that this court was still vested with jurisdiction. However, the petition of the appellant was entertained and was disposed of much after the jurisdiction was

¶29

¶30

conferred on the Central Administrative Tribunal. The present appeal having been filed in the year 2014, is pending before this court since then notwithstanding the conferment of jurisdiction on the CAT and in dealing with the controversy interest of justice requires that this court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not precluded from considering the case of the appellant and granting appropriate relief. However, it is to be kept in view that the respondents would be justified in questioning the jurisdiction of this court in addressing the dispute, especially since the learned Single Judge against whose order the present appeal is filed has not expressed on the merits of the case. Consequently, if there has been an illegal order of reversion against the appellant and if consequently it affects his pensionary benefits, he would certainly be left to his remedies not withstanding the fact that there has been much time spent in these proceedings by the appellant before this court. It is not too late to file an appeal before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction and he is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum,

¶31

¶32

notwithstanding the delay if any. The present appeals are disposed of with liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum in

¶33

respect of his grievance.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

sdu

Basappa .L.Bavidoddi v. the General Manager and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basappa .L.Bavidoddi v. the General Manager and Ors.

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

Hyderabad Krantaka Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka

Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Shri Kushal D.Oswal Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt. Seema W/O S.C.Krishna Murthy Vs S.C.Krishna Murthy S/O Late Shrinivas Rao

Kallappa S/O Dhulappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.