Dismissed

M Ashok Kumar v. H R Department

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023WP/9630/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed this writ petition seeking to quash the respondent's order regarding the petitioner's service benefits. It held that the petitioner, whose service was terminated in 1993, filed for benefits in 2022, well beyond the 30-year limitation. The Court found force in the respondent's submission that a final settlement was made in 2000.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to relief.

M Ashok Kumar Vs H R Department — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 9630 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 9630 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. LATE MARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, DEPT OF PB. NO.6321/68160-93, R/AT NO. 107/6, ”B” STREET, JAYARAJ NAGAR, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 047.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KAMALA KUMARI M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

H R DEPARTMENT THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD, HELICOPTER DIVISION (HC), VIMANAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 017. THE RESPONDENT IS BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER H.R SMT. TARANI RANJAN PATRO.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

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

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER/REPLY DATED 18.03.2022 AT ANNEXURE-P

¶16

¶17

WP No. 9630 of 2022

¶18

AND TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.01.2022 AT ANNEXURE-N. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.03.2022 (Annexure-P), issued by

¶21

the respondent on the ground that, the respondentauthority has not released the service benefits of the petitioner.

¶22

I have heard Smt. Kamala Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶23

Smt. Kamala Kumar M., learned counsel

¶24

appearing for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner was appointed as casual Labour during 1985, and his service was confirmed. Respondent has promoted the petitioner to

¶25

the post of Miller-A with effect from 26.02.1993 and his service was terminated by the respondent-Management on 13.04.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination before the Presiding Officer, Labour

¶26

¶27

WP No. 9630 of 2022

¶28

Court, Bangalore in ID No.384 of 2006 and the said claim petition came to be dismissed on 23.02.2007. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner has made a claim for settlement the service benefits. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not well and he was under treatment at Nimhans and therefore, the petitioner has approached the respondent for settlement of his service benefits. Accordingly, she sought for interference of this court.

¶29

Per contra, Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that, the final settlement in respect of the petitioner was made on 01.05.2000 and there is no outstanding amount from the respondent-authority side to be payable to the petitioner and he further contended that, the claim has been made after 30 years from the termination of service and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the writ papers and it is not in dispute that the service of the petitioner was

¶31

¶32

WP No. 9630 of 2022

¶33

terminated by accepting resignation letter on 13.04.1993 and the petitioner has filed ID No.384 of 2006 before the Labour Court, Bangalore for claiming back wages and other consequential benefits and the said claim petition came to be dismissed on 23.02.2007. I have also noticed from the impugned order produced at Annexure-P that settlement has been made by respondent-authority on 01.05.2000 itself and in that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim for settlement of his service benefits after 30 years i.e. after his termination from service and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authority. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

M Ashok Kumar v. H R Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ashok Kumar v. H R Department

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

D Sharanappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Ramesh Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Chandrakala, Vs the Union of India

Smt Susheela Vs the Chairman

Ms Diana Jose Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosha a J Vs the State of Karnataka