Allowed

Kum.Ranjana Bala Naik v. the Commissioner/Appellate Authority

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2021WP/108271/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, exercising writ jurisdiction, allowed a petition challenging the rejection of back-wage claims due to alleged income underestimation. The court quashed orders verifying caste status and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 26.03.2013 and 26.05.2018 quashed; matter remitted to Respondent No.2 for fresh reconsideration within three months.

Kum.Ranjana Bala Naik Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.108271/2019 (GM-CC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

KUM.RANJANA BALA NAIK D/O BALA VENKU NAIK, AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS, R/O B.NO.18, H.NO.213, KSRP POLICE QUARTERS, APMC ROAD, MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI-590010.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER/APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CASTE/INCOME VERIFICATION, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTEMNT, NO.16/D, DEVRAJ ARS BHAVAN, MILLER TANK BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGLAURU-560052.

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI/ DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶13

TAHSILDAR, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590004.

¶14

¶15

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590003.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2018 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26.05.2018 VIDE ANNEXUREM AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2013, PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINITIATE THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF CIVIL WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE WITH ALL SERVICE BENEFITS AND BACK WAGES.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 26.03.2013 passed by the respondent No.2/District Caste and Income Verification Committee rejecting the claim of the petitioner which was confirmed by the subsequent impugned order at Annexure-M dated 26.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1/Appellate Authority.

¶22

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶24

and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 . Perused the material on record.

¶25

In addition to reiterating the various

¶26

contentions put forth in the memorandum of writ petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, it is the specific contention urged by the petitioner that the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 26.03.2013 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner proceeds on the erroneous premise that the yearly income of the petitioner’s father was Rs.2,02,120/-, which is beyond the prescribed statutory limit of Rs.2,00,000/- without appreciating that the material on record clearly indicates that the yearly income of the petitioner’s father was Rs.1,87,440/-. It is also submitted that respondent No.1/Appellate Authority having referred to the material on record which

¶27

¶28

indicates that the yearly income of the petitioner’s father was Rs.1,87,440/- committed an error in mechanically confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2 without assigning any reasons, muchless cogent or valid reasons and consequently the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 deserve to be quashed.

¶29

Per contra, learned HCGP would support the impugned orders and submit that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order dated 26.03.2013 passed by respondent No.2/Committee will clearly indicate that the sole ground on which the claim of the petitioner was rejected was that his father’s yearly income was Rs.2,02,120/which is beyond the prescribed statutory limit. In this context, it is relevant to state that the material on record in particular the

¶31

¶32

documents produced by the petitioner will indicate that his father’s yearly income was less than Rs.2,00,000/-. This aspect of the matter has already been noticed by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order at Annexure-M, wherein it is clearly held that

¶33

the yearly income of the petitioner’s father was Rs.1,87,440/-. As such, respondent Nos.1 and 2 clearly fell in error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his father’s yearly income exceeded the prescribed statutory limit. Under these circumstances, impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 deserve to be quashed and the matter remitted back to respondent No.2/Committee for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶34

In the result, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. The petition is allowed.

¶37

ii. Impugned orders at Annexures-K and M dated 26.03.2013 and 26.05.2018

¶38

¶39

are hereby quashed. Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2/Committee for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and providing him opportunity within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

Subject to the aforesaid directions and

¶41

observations, writ petition stands disposed off.

¶42

SD JUDGE

¶43

CLK

Kum.Ranjana Bala Naik v. the Commissioner/Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum.Ranjana Bala Naik v. the Commissioner/Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mangala W/O Ramesh Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Neelam W/O Shripad Betgeri Vs the Deputy Commissioner Haveri District

Ramesh S/O Ramachandra Malavade Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravishankar S/O Basavaraj Bhooplapur Vs Captian Suresh S/O Sadashiv Hallikere

The Terdal Minority Co-Operative Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kamal Baburao Supannavar Vs the Regional Commissioner