Partly allowed

Shri.Uttam S/O Chandrakant Sanadi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2019WP/104738/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 sought a direction to the State to expedite the consideration of a representation for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds regarding his father's disablement. The High Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 17.05.2012 within eight weeks.

Shri.Uttam S/O Chandrakant Sanadi Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.104738/2018 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI.UTTAM S/O CHANDRAKANT SANADI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/O: H.NO.259, THORAVAT GALLI, JYOTI NAGAR, KANGALI KH-590010, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONER

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SUNANDA P.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

A N D :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, BENGALURU-560002.

¶13

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (N), KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, JALAMANDALI COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580001.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, D.C. COMPOUND, V.V. NAGAR, BELAGAVI-560019. ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI RAJARAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1, R2 SERVED,

¶16

SRI DAYANAND M.BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITONER AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:17.05.2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-"D" FOR APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER IN THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.3 ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and thereby direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of his father having suffered injuries in the discharge of his duties and consequently, the leg of the father was amputated and thereby he was declared medically unfit to continue the discharge of his duties. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 17.05.2012 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition,

¶23

¶24

that pursuant to Annexure-D, the 3^rd respondent has forwarded the details and recommended the case of the petitioner vide Annexure-E dated 25.05.2012. It is further submitted that the 3^rd respondent again vide communication dated 17.11.2014 has furnished the necessary information sought for by the * 1^st _respondent_* . But despite the same, respondents * _1 to 3_* have omitted to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation.

¶25

The fact that the petitioner has sought for appointment on compassionate ground is not denied. That being the case, it was incumbent upon and the respondents, who are duty bound to expedite the consideration and disposal of the representation. In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of the representation vide Annexure-D to the writ petition dated 17.05.2012. The consideration and disposal of the representation shall be within eight

¶26

*Corrected vide Court Order dated 13.02.2019 Sd/GNJ

¶27

¶28

weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

¶29

order.

¶30

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶32

jm/-

Shri.Uttam S/O Chandrakant Sanadi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Uttam S/O Chandrakant Sanadi v. State of Karnataka

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

Ashfak Shafi Ahamed Vs Mohammed Sab Chand Sab Mangaluru

Venkappa S/O. Sateppa Biradar Patil Vs Sattewwa W/O. Hanmant @ Hanmantgouda Sanagoudar

Venkappa S/O. Veerabhadrappa Ugarkhod Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Dr Arun Jaiswal (Meerapuraiaya) Vs Sri Chandrashekhar W/O

Anita W/O Kandi Hemaraddi Vs Sajjanna Ganigera

Shri.Radhakrishna S/O Gadageppagouda Patil Vs Shri.Rajendra S/O Venkappa Nyamagouda