Allowed

Mariyamma W/O Dara Rajaratnam v. the Secretary to Government

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024WP/103934/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family of a municipal corporation valve man who died of COVID-19 sought compensation under a government order; their representations went unanswered. The court issued a mandamus directing respondent No.4 to consider the representations and pass suitable orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to consider representations (Annexures H, J, M, M1) and pass suitable orders within six weeks.

Mariyamma W/O Dara Rajaratnam Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17027 WP No. 103934 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103934 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MARIYAMMA W/O. DARA RAJARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO.65, 3^RD CROSS,

¶6

MANTUR ROAD, ARALIKATTI, HUBLI.

¶7

KONDAYYA S/O. DARA RAJARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: PAINTING, R/O. H.NO.65, 3^RD CROSS, MANTUR ROAD, ARALIKATTI, HUBLI.

¶8

GALAYYA S/O. DARA RAJARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: PAINTING, R/O. H.NO.65, 3^RD CROSS, MANTUR ROAD, ARALIKATTI, HUBLI.

¶9

ZHANSI RANI D/O. DARA RAJARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: PAINTING, R/O. H.NO.65, 3^RD CROSS, MANTUR ROAD, ARALIKATTI, HUBLI.

¶10

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶12

(BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, VEEDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

THE DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIVESHWARAIAIH TOWER, VEEDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01.

¶17

THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBLI.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17027 WP No. 103934 of 2024

¶20

HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBLI-580001.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ADMN), HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBLI-580001.

¶22

THE ZONAL OFFICER, HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBLI-580001.

¶23

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (SOUTH), HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBLI-580001.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA WATER BOARD, HDWSS, HUBBALLI-580001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R7; SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

¶28

i. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 8 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 16.07.2021 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ANNEXURE-J AND ALSO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.12.2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M AND ANNEXURE-M1.

¶29

ii. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 8 TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AS PER THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.AE 190 VECCA/11/2020 DATED 07.08.2020 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D;

¶30

iii. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND FURTHER TO DIRECT THEM TO PAY THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FOR THE DELAYED PERIOD.

¶31

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

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17027 WP No. 103934 of 2024

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶36

the learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7 & 8.

¶37

It is the case of the petitioners that the husband of petitioner No.1, who was appointed as a daily wager in the respondent-Corporation, was regularized in the year 1993 as valve man in the year 2019. Due to the Corona virus decease, COVID 19, husband of petitioner No.1 was inflicted due to the COVID 19 infection and he died on 24.05.2021 after being admitted to the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Hubli (KIMS). It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the cause of death of the husband of petitioner was due to the infection and due to COVID 19.

¶38

Pursuant to the death of the husband, petitioner No.1 made a representation to respondent No.4 for payment of compensation amounting to Rs.30,00,000/due to the death of her husband and more so, as she was

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17027 WP No. 103934 of 2024

¶40

financially struggling to maintain the family as the husband of the petitioner was the sole breadwinner of the family. The State Government on 14.02.2022, addressed a letter to the 4^th respondent, sought the status report for payment of compensation to other employees, who died during the COVID 19 pandemic due to the infection. The representation so made by the petitioner, did not yield any response, and neither any compensation was paid and nor was it considered. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in non- consideration of the representation submitted, is before this Court.

¶41

Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the representation so filed by the petitioners would be considered in accordance with law, based on the medical report and the opinion from the Board, if at all the petitioners is entitled to any compensation in accordance with law. Accordingly, she seeks some reasonable time would be granted for consideration of the representation.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents, the

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17027 WP No. 103934 of 2024

¶44

representation of the petitioners having not been considered, it is the duty and responsibility of the concerned contesting respondents to consider the representation and pass suitable orders keeping in mind the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka with regard to compensation that is to be paid to the deceased

¶45

having died due to the COVID 19 pandemic. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. This petition is allowed.

¶48

ii. A writ of mandamus is issued, directing respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.07.2021 and 07.12.2023 as per Annexures-H, J, M and M1 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶49

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶50

KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Mariyamma W/O Dara Rajaratnam v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyamma W/O Dara Rajaratnam v. the Secretary to Government

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

J K Cement Works, Muddapur Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Fakeerappa S/O Chayappa Boodihal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sr Venkappa S/O Veerabhadrappa Ugarkod Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Abid Hussain Kittur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B C Dharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Gulzar S/O Abdul Latif Momen Vs the Authorised Officer