Allowed

Sri. Durgesh H v. Secretary to Government

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2024WP/10482/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirs of a deceased District Consumer Forum President sought leave encashment benefits denied by respondents. Relying on a division bench judgment upheld by the Supreme Court and an identical coordinate bench case affirming parity with district judges, the court allowed the petition and directed consideration of representations within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' representations (Annexure-J) taking cognizance of cited judgments and complete within three months.

Sri. Durgesh H Vs Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:15096 WP No. 10482 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10482 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. DURGESH H, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 837/1, 10TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, KTJ NAGAR, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶8

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

KUM. TANMAYA D.S, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, D/O DURGESH, D/O LATE SUNANDA, R/AT NO. 837/1, 10TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, KTJ NAGAR, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶10

APOORVA D.S, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, D/O DURGESH, D/O LATE SUNANDA, R/AT NO. 837/1, 10TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, KTJ NAGAR, DAVANAGERE - 577 002, PETITIONER NO.3 IS BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER PETITIONER NO. 1.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. J. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:15096 WP No. 10482 of 2024

¶14

AND:

¶15

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

THE REGISTRAR AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BASAVA BHAVAN, BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KARNATAKA, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 25.11.2023 VIDE ANNX-J AND EXTEND THE TO GRANT LEAVE ENCASHMENT BENEFIT OF DECEASED SUNANDA PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP NO. 11807/2020 ANNX-D) TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

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

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:15096 WP No. 10482 of 2024

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents in not extending the grant of leave encashment benefit of deceased Sunanda.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.

¶26

The entitlement in regard to leave encashment

¶27

is dealt by the division bench in W.A.No.85/2021. At paragraph No.12 of the judgment, the division bench has held as under:

¶28

12. Resultantly, the writ appeal is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for equal treatment and also entitled for Earned Leave at par with the District Judges/Retired District Judges who are appointed as Presidents of District Consumer Forum. This exercise of granting the benefits to the present appellant and other identically placed Presidents be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

In an identical case, the coordinate bench in

¶30

W.P.No.18639/2023, referring to the judgment rendered

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:15096 WP No. 10482 of 2024

¶32

by the division bench, has examined the right of the President of a District Forum to seek equal treatment and earned leave encashment on par with district judges, who are appointed as President of the District Forum. The coordinate bench echoing the principle of parity, determined that the non-judicial members, akin to district judges, are also entitled for earned leave encashment.

¶33

The first petitioner's wife, a practicing advocate, was appointed as President of the District Forum. Drawing upon the precedent established by the division bench, upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and reiterated by the co-ordinate bench in an identical case, the respondents are bound to consider the petitioners representation. It is incumbent upon the respondents to acknowledge the judgments rendered by the division bench and co-ordinate bench of this Court, affirming petitioner's status as legal heirs of the former District forum President, thereby entitling the petitioner to assert a claim concerning leave encashment. Consequently, the respondents are duty

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15096 WP No. 10482 of 2024

¶35

bound to evaluate the representation in conformity with established principles.

¶36

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds

¶37

to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶40

ii. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners as per Annexure-J and pass appropriate orders by taking cognizance of the judgment cited supra;

¶41

iii. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK

Sri. Durgesh H v. Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Durgesh H v. Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Bhavanishankara. a Vs State of Karnataka

K Gunasagar Vs Indian Bank

C J Karigowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C C Ashok Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.T.K. Abdul Rahiman Vs the Asst. General Manager (Admn)

Sri. Lokesh M v Vs the State of Karnataka