Dismissed

Smt. Shaihinaj W/O Late Abdulrazak Dharwad v. the Superintendent Engineer (v)

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024WP/105719/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow challenged a disciplinary order imposing compulsory retirement on her late husband, a KPTCL lineman, for manipulating his date of birth, including recovery of wages paid beyond his true retirement date. The court dismissed the petition as barred by delay and laches, the employee having never contested the order before his death.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Shaihinaj W/O Late Abdulrazak Dharwad… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11553 WP No. 105719 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.105719 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.SHAIHINAJ, W/O LATE ABDULRAZAK DHARWAD, AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O: DADAPIR A NALABAND, NEW BUSTAND BACK SIDE, KALAMNAGAR, LAKSHMESWAR, TQ: LAKSHMESWAR, DIST: GADAG – 582 116.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S.SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (V), TRANSMISSION (E AND O), ZONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 581 101.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BL AND SSM DIVISION, KPTCL LTD., BAGALKOT – 587 101.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 110KV, V V DIVISION, KPTCL KERUR – 587 206, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI P.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11553 WP No. 105719 of 2022

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.12.2012 � � � � �� VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENTS, AND RESPONDENTS TO RELIES THE ALL BENEFITS IMMEDIATELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE - C AND PAY THE PENSION AND MONITORY BENEFIT TILL TODAY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging order dated 29.12.2012 passed by 1^st respondent at Annexure-A and seeking for direction to consider for petitioner’s representation dated 02.08.2013 at Annexure-C, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

Sri Siddappa S.Sajjan, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner’s husband Abdulrazak Dharwad was appointed as Assistant Lineman with respondent-Corporation on 01.04.1984. His services were terminated as per order dated 29.02.2012. It was submitted that as per order at Annexure-A, respondents had initiated Departmental Enquiry (‘DE’ for short) against Abdulrazak on ground that while entering service, he submitted manipulated date of birth in School Transfer Certificate to

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11553 WP No. 105719 of 2022

¶26

show it as 01.04.1958 instead of 01.04.1948 and submitted it as document of date birth. It was submitted that as per original date of birth, he would have retired on 31.03.2006, but by virtue of fraudulent/ manipulated document, he continued in service till passing of order by disciplinary authority. It was submitted, under impugned order, disciplinary authority had passed order for compulsory retirement on 31.03.2006 and for determination of his service benefits up to that date. Order also provides for recovery of payment of wages and allowances from 01.04.2006 till date of determination, from his pension and DCRG. It was submitted, since order of punishment of recovery was grossly disproportionate, petitioner was assailing same. It was submitted that husband of petitioner having worked up to date of termination of service, act of respondents in denying payment for said period would be too harsh and contrary to law.

¶27

On other hand, Sri P.V.Gunjal, learned counsel for respondent no.1 sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted that petition was liable to be rejected outright on ground of delay and laches. It was submitted, employee had

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11553 WP No. 105719 of 2022

¶30

suffered order of punishment passed in year 2012, but he had not questioned same up to 27.11.2013 i.e. date of his death. Even if any cause of action accrued to present petitioner-wife of employee, writ petition filed in year 2022 would be highly belated and sought for dismissal. It was submitted recovery was being effected as per impugned order from date of order and therefore petitioners would also be guilty of acquiescence.

¶31

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶32

From above, service of Abdulrazak, petitioner’s husband as Lineman with respondent-Corporation is not in dispute. Determination of his service by order at AnnexureA, an order passed on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings for manipulating original records insofar as date of birth to extend his period of service is also not in dispute. While petitioner contends, that portion of order providing for recovery of salary paid from 01.04.2006 till date of determination of service from his pension and DCRG etc., would be disproportionate and contrary to law, respondent

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11553 WP No. 105719 of 2022

¶34

contends that, petition was highly belated suffers from delay and laches.

¶35

It is seen as per death certificate at Annexure-B, petitioner’s husband died on 27.11.2013 i.e., after passage of impugned order at Annexure-A. Employee, himself did not question order and had acquiescenced to it as it was given effect to. Though on first blush, contention that order of punishment would be disproportionate would appeal, fact that writ petition is filed in year 2022 after more than a decade of passage of order would dispel this Court from entertaining writ petition. Writ petition suffers from delay and laches. Perusal of writ petition indicates that that absolutely no explanation is offered. Therefore, same would be insurmountable.

¶36

For said reason, writ petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

¶39

CLK,EM CT-ASC

Smt. Shaihinaj W/O Late Abdulrazak Dharwad v. the Superintendent Engineer (v)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Shaihinaj W/O Late Abdulrazak Dharwad v. the Superintendent Engineer (v)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.H.v.Mangala D/O.Veerappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mallavva W/O Siddalingappa Naikar Vs the Accountant Officer

Sri a Sree Ramulu S/O Late Sri B Thimmappa Vs Shri B Balasubramanyam S/O Late B Laxminarayana Sharma

Dr. Poornima S/ Hebbar Vs the Secretary

Smt Rekha S W/O Ambarishaiah. G Vs Shri Ambarsihaiah G S/O Gundaiah Tondehal Hiremath

Uma Satish Kamble Vs the Chairman and Managing Director