Allowed

Smt Pankaja M v. the District Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024RP/275/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a review petition filed by a respondent in a writ matter concerning Anganawadi worker eligibility. The court set aside the previous order because it failed to consider an extended notification period regarding the husband's death and application filing deadlines, and restored the writ petition to file.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; order dated 13.04.2023 set aside; writ petition restored to file; authorities directed not to disturb current Anganawadi arrangements.

Smt Pankaja M Vs the District Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36985 RP No. 275 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO.275 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PANKAJA M W/O LATE NANDEESHA B AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS MADHUVANAHAALI VILLAGE AND POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL TALUK

¶14

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571 440.

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE CDPO (HEAD OFFICE) KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRCT - 571 440 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

¶17

CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE CDPO (REGIONAL OFFICE) MADHUVANAHAALI VILLAGE AND POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:36985 RP No. 275 of 2023

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶21

SMT. BHAGYA N. W/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS MADHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. S.A. AHMED, LEARNED AAG FOR SRI. HANUMANTHRAY LAGALI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI SUNEEL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THE REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE ON IN WRIT PETITION NO. 20240/2022 DATED 13.04.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE D.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This Review Petition is filed by the respondent

¶29

No.4 in W.P.No.20240 of 2022, seeking review of the

¶30

order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure-D).

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:36985 RP No. 275 of 2023

¶33

2. Heard Sri.Chandrakanth R.Goulay, learned

¶34

counsel for the Review petitioner and Sri.S.A.Ahmed learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State and Sri.Suneel S.Narayan, for

¶35

learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶36

It is contended by the learned counsel

¶37

appearing for the review petitioner that, this court, was pleased to allow the writ petition by order dated 13.04.2023 on the ground that the respondent No.4 therein was not a widow as on the date of notification dated 21.04.2021. He further contended that, the respondent-Government has issued extended notification for filing the application for the post of Anganawadi worker from 22.05.2021 up to 30.06.2021 and therefore, as the husband of the respondent No.4 in the writ petition died on 23.05.2021, order impugned requires to be reviewed in this writ petition.

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36985 RP No. 275 of 2023

¶39

In this regard, this court has directed the

¶40

Deputy Commissioner to assist the court as the respondent-authorities have not given proper assistance/information to the learned Additional Government Advocate and therefore, records have been produced in this review petition to ascertain the fact.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

¶42

Having taken note of the factual aspects on record, as the review petitioner is the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.20240 of 2022, I am of the view that,

¶43

as the reasons stated in paragraph 7 of the order dated 13.04.2023 has been made without considering the extended period for filing the application for the post of Anganawadi Worker and therefore, I am of the view that, review petition requires to be allowed and

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:36985 RP No. 275 of 2023

¶45

¶46

accordingly, the review petition is allowed . Order dated 13.04.2023 in W.P.No.20240is set aside and the writ petition is restored to file. It is made clear that the respondent-authorities are directed not to disturb the entire arrangement as same may affect the children in the Anganawadi.

¶47

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶48

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Smt Pankaja M v. the District Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pankaja M v. the District Commissioner

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

Sannaswamygowda Vs Rathnamma

Sri.Gangavenkataiah Vs Smt.Mangalamma

Sri. Mahadevappa S/O Late Mahadevappa Since Dead Rep by Lrs Shivamma Vs Sri. Shivarudrappa S/O Late Basavarajappa Since Deceased Rep by Lrs Rathnamma

Sri. Basavanaika Vs Smt. Rathnamma @ Sharadamma

Sri D S Manjunatha Vs Smt D K Padmavathi

Sri. M. Gopal Vs Sri Munishamappa