Allowed

Sri.M. Rajendra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2024WP/10982/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forest department staff who served in the STF that eliminated Veerappan claimed the State's announced reward but were denied it because they were not serving on 18.10.2004. The High Court found this restriction discriminatory and a breach of the State's promise under the 2005 Government Order, quashed the rejection order and directed release of the rewards within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.08.2015 quashed as to petitioners; respondents directed to release reward per Government Order dated 08.07.2005 within three months.

Sri.M. Rajendra Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10982 OF 2018 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.50155 OF 2015 (S-RES)

¶7

IN W.P. NO.10982/2018:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M. RAJENDRA AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE MADAIAH WORKING AS WATCHER, M.M. HILLS, WILD LIFE RANGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK, PIN-571439 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MALLAPPA S. NACHAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHAN SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-560001

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (CHIEF OF FOREST FORCE) ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003

¶18

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHAMARAJANAGARA CIRCLE CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571439.

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-560 001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, MADE IN REF. NO.C¥ÀfÃ 113 C¥À¸ÉÃ 2007,

¶23

BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.

¶24

IN W.P. NO.50155/2015:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI. A.T. VENKATEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,

¶27

1(a) SMT. K. ANUSUYA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE A.T.VENKATEGOWDA

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶29

1(b) SMT. A.V.SOWMYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O LATE A.T. VENKATEGOWDA R/AT NO.255, 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.

¶30

1(c) SRI. A.V. SANDEEP AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE A.T.VENKATEGOWDA

¶31

PETITIONER NOS.1(a) AND 1(c) BOTH ARE R/AT NO.813, EAF BLOCK, GANGE ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE-570 023

¶32

SRI VENKATRAMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY, RETD. FOREST GUARD, NOW R/AT NO.2052, OLD K.R. NAGARA ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN-571 105, MYSORE DISTRICT

¶33

SRI. R. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O RAMASHETTY WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, GUNDALPETE PIN-571 439, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT

¶34

SRI. G. SHANKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, WORKING AS DRIVER (OFFICE OF THE A.C.F.) HANUR SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGAL TALUK, PIN:571 439, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶36

SRI. K. RAMU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE KARI VENKATEGOWDA, WORKING AS DRIVER, (OFFICE OF THE DCF, KOLLEGAL) CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN:571 439

¶37

SRI. RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE CHINNA SHETTY, WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER, RANGE FOREST OFFICE AT PALAR, KOLLEGAL TQ, PIN:571439, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶38

SMT. SHARDAMMA AGE 62 YEARS, W/O LATE K. HONNAPPA, RETD. DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, BYLOOR RANGE FOREST OFFICE, NOW R/AT GEJANATHAPURA VILLAGE, RAMAPURA POST, KOLLEGAL TQ, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 439.

¶39

SRI. R. BASAVARAJU AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER, WILD LIFE RAMAPURA RANGE, KOUDAHALLY VILLAGE POST, KOLLEGAL TQ, PIN:571 439, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶40

SRI. P.S. PANDAPPA AGE 52 YEARS, S/O LATE BASAVA, WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER, WILD LIFE RANGE, M M HILLS, KOLLEGAL TQ. PIN:571 439 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶42

SRI ERANNA AGE 47 YEARS, S/O KARIYAPPA, FOREST WATCHER, M.M. HILLS, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, M.M. HILLS, KOLLEGAL TQ PIN:571 439, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶43

SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR AGE 55 YEARS, S/O A. JOSEPH, WORKING AS FOREST GUARD, HANUR WILD LIFE RANGE HANUR-KOLLEGAL TQ, PIN:571 439 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶44

SRI SALAN R AGED 45 YEARS, S/O RAMASWAMY, WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, HANUR RANGE, BANDAHALLY SECTION (DRFC) HUGYAM, VILLAGE AND POST, PIN:571 439, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶45

SMT. MADAMMA AGED 58 YEARS, W/O LATE POTHE MADAIAH, WORKING AS WATCHER (DEAD), THAMDEGERE STREET, M.M. HILLS, KOLLEGAL TQ., PIN:571 439, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶46

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLAPPA S. NACHAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOs.1(a) TO 1(c))

¶47

AND:

¶48

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶51

CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001

¶52

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001

¶53

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (CHIEF OF FOREST FORCE) ARANYABHAVAN, MALLESWARM, BANGALORE-560 003

¶54

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST TIGER BLOCK PROJECT, MYSORE-570001.

¶55

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHAMARAJANAGARA CIRCLE, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-57111.

¶56

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEAPRTMENT OF FINANCE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001

¶57

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶58

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶61

BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.

¶62

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶63

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶64

ORAL ORDER

¶65

The petitioner in W.P. No.10982/2018 has challenged an order bearing No. C¥ÀfÃ 113 C¥À¸ÉÃ 2007 dated 17.08.2015

¶66

passed by the Under Secretary to Government (Services), Department of Forest, Environment and Ecology, rejecting his claim for reward announced by the State Government for hunting down Mr. Veerappan. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit declared by the State Government to all those persons who were involved in eliminating Mr. Veerappan.

¶67

The petitioners in W .P. No.50155/2015 have also challenged the order dated 17.08.2015 referred above by which their claim for a reward announced by the State Government for hunting down Mr. Veerappan was rejected.

¶68

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶69

The petitioner in W.P. No.10982/2018 was a

¶70

Watcher at M.M. Hills Wildlife Range while petitioners in W.P. No.50155/2015 were various officers in the Department of Forest associated with the Special Task Force (STF) to hunt down the forest brigand Mr. Veerappan.

¶71

The petitioner in W.P. No.10982/2018 and petitioners in W.P. No.50155/2015 (collectively referred to as ‘petitioners’) contend that they are all employees of the Department of Forest and were part of the STF which successfully eliminated the forest brigand Mr. Veerappan. The Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG and IGP) recognizing the efforts of the STF proposed to the State Government by his letter dated 24.01.2005 to reward persons who had discharged duties in the Department of Police and Department of Forest and who had assisted in eliminating Mr. Veerappan. A list of persons who were eligible for the reward was also forwarded to the State Government. The State Government passed an order to grant the reward as per the proposal sent by the DG and IGP. Consequent thereto, a Government order bearing No.HD.33:POP.2005, Bengaluru dated 08.07.2005 was issued to reward persons who were

¶72

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶73

involved till 18.10.2004 when Mr. Veerappan was gunned down. As per this Government Order, those personnel who served STF for three years and above were rewarded Rs.3,00,000/- and those personnel who served more than two years and upto three years were rewarded Rs.2,00,000/- and those who had served for one year and above but less than two years were rewarded Rs.1,00,000/- and those persons who had served less than one year were rewarded with Rs.50,000/-. The personnel below the rank of Inspector were ordered to be given a site measuring 30 feet x 40 feet in any District place while personnel above Deputy Superintendent of Police rank were to be given a site measuring 40 feet x 60 feet in any District place. The respondent No.3 submitted a list of 259 rank persons who were eligible for the reward along with their designation and place of service and the period of service in STF. The respondent No.1 sought for clarification following which the respondent No.3 by his letter dated 19.04/05.2012 addressed to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P No.50155/2015 requested them to provide details as sought for by the respondentf No.1. The petitioners contend that their names appeared in the list. The petitioners therefore submitted

¶74

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶75

several representations to the respondent No.3 requesting him to release the reward and to allot the sites as per the Government Order referred supra. Thereafter, since nothing was heard from the respondent No.3, they submitted a representation to the respondent No.2. However, none of them took any initiative to consider the representations though many officers from the Department of Police who served the STF were granted the reward. The petitioners therefore filed W.P. Nos.2765-2796/2015 for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 therein to consider their representations. This Court in terms of the order dated 27.01.2015, disposed off the writ petitions and directed the respondent No.3 therein to consider the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and to forward his report to the respondent No.1 who was directed to take a decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report. However, no action was taken by the respondents which compelled the petitioners to file contempt petitions in C.C.C. Nos.654672/2015 (decided on 19.08.2015). The respondents after receipt of the notice in the contempt petitions extended the

¶76

11 -

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶78

benefit to only six persons and rejected the claim of the petitioners in terms of the impugned order dated 17.08.2015.

¶79

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶80

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the list of 259 persons identified by the respondent No.3, the names of the petitioners were also found and therefore, the respondents were bound to reward the petitioners as per the Government Order dated 08.07.2005. He contends that the petitioners have all risked their lives in helping the Police to gun down Mr.Veerappan. However, by the impugned order, the respondent No.1 has refused to include 146 personnel of the Department of Forest for granting the reward. He submitted that the respondent No.1 has selectively granted the reward to about six personnel of the Forest Department who were part of the STF on 18.10.2004 when Mr. Veerappan was gunned down. He submitted that this was in stark contrast with the recommendation of the DG and IGP dated 24.01.2005 as well as the Government Order dated 08.07.2005. He submits that it was due to the concerted

¶81

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶82

efforts of many people in the Department of Police and Department of Forest that Mr. Veerappan was gunned down on 18.10.2004 and hence, restricting the reward to only six persons who were associated with the STF on the day of killing Mr.Veerappan was unjustified and discriminatory. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners are also entitled to be considered for grant of the reward.

¶83

Per contra, the statement of objections is filed on behalf of the respondents-State in W.P No.50155/2015 contending that the State Government had taken a conscious decision only to reward those personnel who were employed with the STF on the day of killing Mr. Veerappan i.e., on 18.10.2004. It is contended that the State Government has taken into consideration several factors including the financial impact that may be caused in granting the reward to all those persons who were engaged in hunting down Mr. Veerappan.

¶84

Learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated

¶85

the above contentions and claimed that the petitioners are not entitled to be treated on par with those officials who were granted the reward as they were not part of the STF on

¶86

13 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶88

18.10.2004. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 be upheld.

¶89

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate. I have also perused the records enclosed along with the writ petition.

¶90

It is not in dispute that the petitioners were all part of the STF which was constituted by the State Government to nab the forest brigand Mr. Veerappan. It is a matter of record that several officers of the Department of Police and Department of Forest had laid down their lives at the hands of Mr. Veerappan while serving the STF. The DG and IGP in terms of his letter dated 24.01.2005 had sent a proposal to the State Government to reward the personnel from the Forest Department, Department of Police and the informants who were involved in events leading upto the day of hunting down the forest brigand. Following this, the respondent No.1 had issued a Government Order dated 08.07.2005 accepting the proposal as submitted by the DG and IGP of Police. Apart from this, an increment was ordered to be given to all those

¶91

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶92

employees who were part of the STF and were granted the benefit of a site in a District Place. A list of persons who were entitled to the reward was prepared. The names of the petitioners were found in the said list of employees of the Department of Forest who were eligible for the reward. It appears that the request of the petitioners was not considered despite representations made by them which compelled them to file W.P. Nos.2765-2796/2015 before this Court which were disposed off in terms of the order dated 27.01.2015. Since the representations of the petitioners were not considered by the respondent No.3, C.C.C. Nos.654-672/2015 were filed. After service of notice in the contempt petitions, the respondent No.1 held proceedings and restricted reward to only six persons who were part of the STF when Mr. Veerappan was gunned down on 18.10.2004. This apparently was on the ground that granting the reward to those employees who were part of the STF would result in enormous expenditure to the State Exchequer as the amount set apart for the reward was exhausted. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being model employers were bound to stick to the promise made by the Executive Order dated 08.07.2005 offering the reward to the department staff who were part of

¶93

15 -

¶94

NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶95

STF, including the petitioners. A promise is made to be honoured and not to be broken and a promise made by a sovereign State has its own intrinsic value, giving a sense of purpose and pride to whom it is made. It is known the world over that Mr. Veerappan was not gunned down in a day, but it took several lives and several years and several persons had risked their lives in providing information about Mr. Veerappan from time to time. The State could have either rewarded all who were involved in hunting down of Mr. Veerappan or not at all. It could not have trivialized the effort and courage of all those who were killed or who had survived the onslaught of the brigand, by restricting the reward to only a handful. The action on the part of the respondents in restricting the reward to few persons from the Forest Department is not sensible and shows the insensitivity of the State Government. Therefore, to grant the reward to only persons who were part of the STF on 18.10.2004 does not stand to reason but is indeed an act of discrimination. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 deserves to be interfered with. Consequently, the following:

¶96

16 -

¶97

NC: 2024:KHC:33125 WP No. 10982 of 2018 C/W WP No. 50155 of 2015

¶98

ORDER

¶99

i. The Writ Petitions are allowed .

¶100

ii. The order Dated 17.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 - Additional Secretary, Department Of Forest And Environment, bearing No.C¥ÀfÃ 113

¶101

C¥À¸ÉÃ 2007, Bangalore, in so far as it relates to the

¶102

petitioner in W.P. No.10982/2018 and petitioners in W.P. No.50155/2015 is quashed.

¶103

iii. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take immediate steps to release the reward payable to the petitioner in W.P. No.10982/2018 and petitioners in W.P. No.50155/2015 as per the Government Order dated 08.07.2005. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶104

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

¶105

JUDGE

¶106

SMA / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Sri.M. Rajendra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M. Rajendra v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Gangadharappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Mamatha Y., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Y C Balakrishna Vs the Managing Director Watches

Sri Basavaraj P Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt D P Lalithamma Vs the Member Secretary

Sri.Zaheer Ahmed Vs the Principal Accountant General