Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by the State against a single judge order granting an employee the benefit of superannuation at 62 years, accepting that a similar order was already implemented and appealed separately, thus necessitating parity. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WA No. 553 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT APPEAL NO.553 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by RUPA V
Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP) AND:
…APPELLANT
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. SET
WA No. 553 of 2021
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO. 47307/2016 (S-RES) AS ILLEGAL. ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER/S DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.B.Rajendra Prasad, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the appellant.
This intra court appeal has been filed against an order dated 14.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 has been allowed.
WA No. 553 of 2021
allowed the writ petition and has held the respondent to be entitled to the benefit of superannuation at the age of 62 years.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the single judge order holding the respondent entitled to superannuation at 62 years calls for interference under the principle of parity.
Whether the appellant can successfully challenge the order on grounds that a similar order was already implemented and appealed separately.
State of Karnataka
Narayana Rao P.A.
Alok Aradhe
Anant Ramanath Hegde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
