Allowed

Sri. a. S. Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022WP/8095/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement rejecting his application for transferring authorization on compassionate grounds due to the late employee's age. Relying on coordinate bench judgments holding age restrictions inapplicable, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the endorsement, and directed the Deputy Director to reconsider the application within 12 weeks without reference to age or qualific

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 01.12.2021 was quashed and the respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds within 12 weeks.

Sri. a. S. Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 8095 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8095 OF 2022 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. A. S. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE K. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ADDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAJANUKUNTE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560 064.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. UMA SHANKAR M N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPLLIES AND LEGAL METROLGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

¶16

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 8095 of 2022

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AD CIVIL SUPPLY AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT DATED 01.12.2021 AT ANNEXURE - A AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 01.12.2021, by which, the application of the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds comes to be rejected.

¶25

Heard Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel

¶26

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M. Vinod Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 8095 of 2022

¶29

Learned counsel, Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, appearing for

¶30

the petitioner would submit that the endorsement comes about on the ground that the age of the father was 73 years at the time when he died and therefore, the authorization cannot be transferred. This is held to be contrary to law by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021, wherein it has held as follows:

¶31

"The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.17131/2018 disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 8.2.2019, copy whereof is at Annexure-F; at para Nos.9 & 10 of the order, said judgment reads as under:

¶32

“From close scrutiny of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that in W.P.No.22448/2015 which was decided by an order dated 21.09.2016, it has been held that the requirement with regard to having passed SSLC and restriction of age is not applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground. The aforesaid finding has admittedly attained finality and is binding on the respondents as they have not challenged the same either by filing a review petition or by filing a writ appeal. Therefore this Court finds no reason to take a different view.

¶33

10. In the result, the impugned endorsement dated 23.03.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to take note of the application filed by the petitioner and to consider the same for transfer of the authorization on compassionate ground as expeditiously as possible, but not later

¶34

¶35

WP No. 8095 of 2022

¶36

than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.”

¶37

2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat likecases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶38

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed; impugned endorsement dated 03.09.2021 at Annexure-B is quashed; second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s application without reference to age and qualification.

¶39

Time for compliance is two months. No costs."

¶40

In the light of the fact that the issue in the lis

¶41

stands covered to the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench

¶42

of this Court (supra) , I deem it appropriate to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

I. The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

II. The endorsement dated 01.12.2021 stands quashed.

¶46

III. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner bearing in mind the

¶47

¶48

WP No. 8095 of 2022

¶49

observations in the course of the order within 12

¶50

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶51

order.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri. a. S. Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a. S. Manjunatha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Consumer Federation Ltd. Vs the Deputy Director

Mr Hari Yogendra Tripathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M S Harish Vs Smt. Shubhamangala

Shivprakash Vs Additional Director General of Police

Danush N S Vs District Caste Verification Committee

Sri Shanmukhaswamy Vs the District Caste Verification Committee