Dismissed

Pandurang G Telikar S/O Ganjan Telikar v. the Chief Executive

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024WP/103621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner working as a Waterman sought a writ of mandamus directing Panchayat officials to consider his salary demands and ensure non-interference with his duty. The court dismissed the petition as the relief sought was vague and ambiguous, noting no order had been passed against him to date.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as relief sought was vague, ambiguous, and insufficiently grounded.

Pandurang G Telikar S/O Ganjan Telikar Vs the Chief… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9019 WP No. 103621 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.103621 OF 2022(S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PANDURANG G. TELIKAR S/O. GANJAN TELIKAR, AGED: 36 YEARS, OCC: PDO GRAM PANCHAYAT, BAICHAVAALI, HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 104.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MANE, AND PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OFFICE OF THE ZILL PANCHAYAT, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 110.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, BAICHAVAALLI,

¶14

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

HANGAL TALUK – 581 104. HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE SECRETARY, THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, BAICHAVALLI – 581 104, HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶17

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BAICHAVAALLI HANGAL TALUK – 581 104, HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI A.A.PATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9019 WP No. 103621 of 2022

¶22

THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 16-04-2022 WHICH IS IN FORM OF LEGAL NOTICE PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTY WITHOUT DISTURBING THE PETITIONER AND TO PAY THE SALARY OF LAST 3 MONTHS WHICH IS NOT PAID TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner who is working as a Waterman at respondent No.4-panchayat is before this Court seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to consider his representation dated 16.04.2022 which is in the form of a legal notice permitting the petitioner to discharge his duty without disturbing him and to pay the salary of at least three months which is not paid.

¶26

Admittedly, show cause notice dated 18.02.2021 has been issued by the respondent-panchayat to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause within three days why the action not to be taken in view of he not attending the duty on time. A year later, notice dated 16.04.2022 has been issued by the petitioner through his

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9019 WP No. 103621 of 2022

¶28

lawyer asking for payment of salary and asking the respondent-panchayat not to insist him to give the resignation letter. It is alleged that since no action is taken by the respondent-panchayat authority as per the demands made in the notice dated 16.04.2022, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Heard. Perused the records.

¶30

The relief sought for in the petition is vague and ambiguous. Besides, no such mandamus can be issued to

¶31

the respondent “not to disturb the petitioner in he rendering the service”. No plea or ground as to why the petitioner is seeking salary only for the past three months from the date of his notice.

¶32

The records on the other hand reveal that except issuing of show cause notice no order has been passed against the petitioner till date. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by any action, he may be entitled to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9019 WP No. 103621 of 2022

¶34

Petitioner has not made out any grounds justifying the

¶35

relief sought for.

¶36

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Pandurang G Telikar S/O Ganjan Telikar v. the Chief Executive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang G Telikar S/O Ganjan Telikar v. the Chief Executive

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

Parvatamma W/O. Late Shivanand Puttraddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Susheela P. Sawkar Vs the Registrar

The Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc, Hubballi Vs Sundarsing Rajaramsing Angadi

Rama Krishna Waddar Vs the Commissioner

Shri H B Ramesh Vs the Deputy Director of Public Instruction

Mahabaleshwar S/O. Shivappa Itagi, Vs the State of Karnataka