Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. S.M. Basanagoudar S/O Murigeppagoudar

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2023WP/148523/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed two writ petitions filed by the State of Karnataka and retired veterinary inspectors against Tribunal orders granting pay re-fixation. Relying on a prior decision, the Court held that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting claims due to delay and denial of equitable relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 148524/2020.

The State of Karnataka Vs S.M… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10154-DB WP No. 100733 of 2021 C/W WP No. 148523 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 100733 OF 2021 (S-KAT)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 148523 OF 2020

¶11

IN WP NO. 100733 OF 2021

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND

¶15

VETERINARY SERVICE, DEPARTMENT,

¶16

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶17

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.09.12 03:15:10 -0700

¶18

PODIUM BLOCK, V.V. TOWER, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA, P.B . NO. 5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI H.V.DESAI S/O. LATE VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR VETERINARY INSPECTOR, R/O: MARUTHI NILAYA, NEAR MARUTHI TEMPLE, CHALUKYANAGAR, BADAMI, BAGALKOT DIST-587201.

¶24

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10154-DB WP No. 100733 of 2021 C/W WP No. 148523 of 2020

¶25

SRI V.R. KANDAGAL S/O. RUDRAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR VETERINARY INSPECTOR, R/O: ROOP LAND, 7TH MAIN, OPP. VIJAYA PRINITERS GRBC POST, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT-587101.

¶26

SRI S.N. JOSHI S/O. NARAYANCHAR, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR VETERINARY INSPECTOR, R/O: HARIHARA PLOT WARD NO. 7, NEAR APMC, GOREBAL ROAD, ILKAR TALUK, HUNUGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT-587118.

¶27

SRI R.S. SANKH S/O. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR VETERINARY INSPECTOR, R/O: BABANAGARA POST, VIJAYAPURA-586114.

¶28

SRI K.T. BAJANTRI S/O. TIPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR VETERINARY INSPECTOR, R/O: ALAKUNTI NAGAR (K.C. NAGAR), SALAPUR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586110.

¶29

SRI M.S. CHIKKAMATH S/O. SNARANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR VETERINARY INSPECTOR, R/O: MURAKANAA KERI, NEAR ISHWARA LINGA TEMPLE, BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶30

SRI M.R. DABADI S/O. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR VETERINARY INSPECTOR, R/O: H.NO. 1256, RABAKAVI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, MUDHOL TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-586212.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(NOTICE SERVED TO R2, R6 AND R7)

¶33

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10154-DB WP No. 100733 of 2021 C/W WP No. 148523 of 2020

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KAT IN APPLICATION NO.2421-2427/2018 BY ORDER DATED 06.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶35

IN WP NO. 148523 OF 2020

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

¶38

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, PODIUM BLOCK V.V. TOWER, BENGALURU-560001.

¶39

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA P B NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

¶40

…PETITIONERS

¶41

(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

SRI S.M. BASANAGOUDAR S/O. MURIGEPPAGOUDAR, RETIRED SENIOR VETERINARY INSPECTOR, AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O: H.NO.162/B, ADHYAPAK NAGAR, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI 580025 …RESPONDENT

¶44

(BY SRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT

¶46

- 4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10154-DB WP No. 100733 of 2021 C/W WP No. 148523 of 2020

¶47

IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KAT IN APPLICATION NO. 10828/2019 BY ORDER DATED 26.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶48

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, KRISHNA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Writ Petition No.100733/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 passed in Application Nos.2421-2417/2018 and Writ Petition No.148523/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 passed in Application No.10828/2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). The said applications filed by the respondents were allowed by the Tribunal.

¶51

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned orders will indicate that though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the issues involved in the present petitions are directly/squarely covered by the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. S.M.PARABAT AND OTHERS in Writ

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10154-DB WP No. 100733 of 2021 C/W WP No. 148523 of 2020

¶53

¶54

Petition No.148524/2020 disposed off on 06.06.2022 wherein, it is held as under:

¶55

“This petition essentially relates to the re-fixing of payment pursuant to the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1957. After service of notice, the respondent – employees having entered appearance through their learned counsel make submission in justification of their claim.

¶56

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the papers on record, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶57

a) The benefits that are directed to now be granted by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter ‘KAT’) in Application No. 10828/2019 vide impugned Order dated 06.11.2019 have been already granted to one Mr. Giriyappa pursuant to the direction of the KAT in Application No. 5312/2003 vide order dated 26.10.2010. An identical situation also arose in another case of one Mr. Malleshaiah way back in the year 2013 in Application No. 4537-4551/2012. In the above mentioned cases, the KAT made similar orders after rejecting the contention now taken up in the impugned order with which the respondent-employees had grieved before it.

¶58

b) It hardly needs to be stated that when some employees have been granted statutory benefit because of victory in a legal battle, denying relief to their colleagues in the same situation militates against the Doctrine of Equality enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10154-DB WP No. 100733 of 2021 C/W WP No. 148523 of 2020

¶60

- 6 -

¶61

the Constitution of India. A contra stand would be arbitrary and unjust too. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 932 – 933/1974 between A.V VINODA & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that identical litigants before the court are entitled to identical interim relief unless there are factors militating against the grant. On similar lines, learned Counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in banking on the case of NAGAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA ILR 1998 KAR 3903, too.

¶62

c) The above having been said, there is force in the submission of learned GA that the respondentemployees had approached the KAT with a long delay and therefore, the relief cannot be fully granted to them; delay alone is not treated as a sole ground for denying relief of the kind especially when the employees have retired from the service peacefully and are in the evening of their life. Whatever monetary benefits that would have accrued to the employees otherwise than during the delay period, need not be granted to them.

¶63

In the above circumstances, this Writ petition is disposed off with the above observations.

¶64

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, pale into insignificance. Costs made easy.”

¶65

A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of this

¶66

Court will indicate that the same applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant cases and consequently, we

¶67

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10154-DB WP No. 100733 of 2021 C/W WP No. 148523 of 2020

¶68

are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in passing the impugned orders which cannot be said are suffering from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court in the present petitions. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present petitions and proceed to pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

The petitions are disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order passed in the Writ Petition No.148524/2020 referred to supra .

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32

The State of Karnataka v. S.M. Basanagoudar S/O Murigeppagoudar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. S.M. Basanagoudar S/O Murigeppagoudar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Shakuntala

Saask Developers Vs Mr Ramesh B S

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Shamshadabi Alias Sameerbi W/O Sri. Husen Patil

Shivayogi Urf Shrishail S/O. Shivaputrappa Katti, Occ. Agriculture Vs Dr. Krishnamurthy, Age Major

Sri S S Jadhav S/O Sadashiva (Shivaji Sadashiv Jadhav ) Vs the Inspector General of Police (Igp)

Sri. Siddanagouda S/O Surendragouda Policepatil Vs Bellary Gas Company Hp Gas Dealer