Remanded

Sri. Shrirama v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2022WP/7532/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the Tribunal's order rejecting a nomination application. The High Court observed that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the exception allowing non-family alternate nominees under Rule 302. The petition was disposed of following remittal.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19/01/2022 in Application No. 4623/2021 set aside and matter remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Sri. Shrirama Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.7532 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SHRIRAMA, S/O SRI. GOVINDA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.2-43, KARIKUMERI, THENKA MIJAR, KOMPADAVU, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 144.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.DINESH S.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY), M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (SECONDARY),

¶16

¶17

O/O. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶19

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, MUDABIDRE TALUK, MUDABIDARE – 574 227.

¶20

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E), KARNATAKA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT.SHILPA S GOGI, HCGP)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i)CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO. 4623/2021 DATED 19/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE A.NO.4623/2021 ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.

¶27

Though the matter is listed for consideration of I.A., the petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of preliminary hearing itself.

¶28

¶29

The Tribunal, while rejecting the application of the

¶30

petitioner has been pleased to rely on the Proviso to Note-I, which reads as under:

¶31

“Note-I- Provided that if, at the time of making the nomination, the Government servant has a family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family”.

¶32

While so doing, we find that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the latter portion of the exception following the proviso, which reads as under:

¶33

“Similarly, where the Government servant has only one member in his family in whose favour the original nomination should be made, the alternate nomination can be made in favour of any person who is not a member of his family or in favour of a body of persons whether incorporated or not.”

¶34

5. From a reading of the above, we find that the Rules

¶35

prima facie also provide for nomination of a person, even a legal entity who is not the member of the family as defined under Rule 302 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules.

¶36

In that view of the matter, learned HCGP would submit that the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

¶37

The said submission is placed on record.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

¶40

The order dated 19/01/2022 passed in Application

¶41

No.4623/2021 by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

MKM

Sri. Shrirama v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shrirama v. the 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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Richard Mathew

Sri M Muralidhara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sree Bhagawan Maruthi Temple Trust (Regd) Vs Mr.Tushar Girinath

Ajay R Gowda Vs Janaki Krishnappa

Ajay R Gowda Vs Janaki Krishnappa

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt Shahanajunnisa