Allowed

Sri Kakasaheb Narasgouda Patil @ K N Patil v. Managing Director Karnataka State Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024WP/10166/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a retired employee, sought a direction for the disciplinary authority to decide his appeal regarding recovery from gratuity within three months. The Court allowed the petition and issued the requisite direction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to consider and dispose of Appeal No.1/2018 within three months.

Sri Kakasaheb Narasgouda Patil @ K N Patil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39129 WP No. 10166 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10166 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. KAKASAHEB NARASGOUDA PATIL @ K N PATIL RETIRED SENIOR MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O NO 23, CHANDANA, 2^ND CROSS, 3^RD MAIN RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, J.P.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560078

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUNIL M.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHANA KUMARA K.T., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM CORPORATION LTD., DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CORPORATE OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, BMTC, YASHWANTHAPUR, T.T.M.C, BUS STAND, YASHAVATHAPURA CIRCILE, BENGALURU-560022.

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA H.T., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DISCIPLINARY

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39129 WP No. 10166 of 2024

¶14

AUTHORITY, BENGALURU TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER IN APPEAL NO.1/2018 ANNEXURE-N WITHIN A TIME FRAME OF 03 MONTHS WITHOUT GIVING ANY SCOPE FOR DELAY.

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and decide the appeal filed by him in Appeal No.1/2018.

¶19

The petitioner contends that while he was working as General Manager (Finance), he was served with articles of charges followed by an enquiry and report which was placed before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority passed an order imposing punishment to recover a sum of Rs.9,97,752/- out of the gratuity payable to the petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the Chairman and Board of Directors, Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation (henceforth referred to as 'KSTDC' for short) under Regulation 30 of KSTDC Employees

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39129 WP No. 10166 of 2024

¶21

(conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1982. He contends that even after 06 years 11 months, from the date of his retirement, the retirement benefits is not settled and the respondent has not disposed off the appeal. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for suitable direction.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

¶23

above contentions and submits that the petitioner's statutory appeal is not considered by the Appellate Authority of the respondent, which has delayed the settlement of his retirement benefits.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

¶25

the appeal of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned

¶27

counsel for the respondent, the writ petition deserves to be disposed off. Consequently the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶30

(ii) The respondent is directed to consider and dispose

¶31

off the appeal filed by the petitioner in Appeal No.1/2018 in

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:39129 WP No. 10166 of 2024

¶34

accordance with law at any rate within a period of three months

¶35

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

(iii) Learned counsel for the respondent is permitted to

¶37

file memo of appearance/Vakalath within 10 days from today.

¶38

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Kakasaheb Narasgouda Patil @ K N Patil v. Managing Director Karnataka State Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kakasaheb Narasgouda Patil @ K N Patil v. Managing Director Karnataka State Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ranganatha T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramaswamy D Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v G Venkatesh Vs the District & Sessions Judge

Mr Prashantha D Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Sri P Maruthi Vs the Mission Director

Dr.Suma B Sathenahalli Vs the Government Dental College