Dismissed

Sri Ashwathanarayana T v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/13283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed gram panchayat employees challenged their dismissal resolution and order by writ. The court found an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 113(4) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, dismissed the petition and allowed one week to file an appeal, restraining fresh recruitment meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file appeal under Section 113(4) within one week; respondents restrained from recruiting to the petitioners' posts until then.

Sri Ashwathanarayana T v Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39279 WP No. 13283 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13283 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI ASHWATHANARAYANA T V, S/O DODDAVENKATASHAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR, (NOW UNDER DISMISSAL), THUMMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, THUMMANAHALLI, SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105.

¶8

SMT C T SWETHA, W/O SRI GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, NOW UNDER DISMISSAL, THUMMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, THUMMANAHALLI, SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105.

¶9

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

¶10

(BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHOWDAREDDY T.M, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THUMMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, THUMMANAHALLI, SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105 . REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:39279 WP No. 13283 of 2024

¶16

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THUMMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, THUMMANAHALLI, SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1;

¶19

SRI M S DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3

¶20

SRI VARUN J PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R4 IN I.A NO.1/2024.)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 07.03.2024 PASSED BY THUMMANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, SIDDLAGATTA TALUK, CHICCKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 07.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the order dated 25.03.2024 passed by respondent No.3, dismissing the petitioners from service. The petitioners have also sought for an order to reinstate them into service and to pay all consequential benefits.

¶26

When this writ petition was listed for orders, it was pointed out by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the orders impugned in this writ petition are appealable under

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:39279 WP No. 13283 of 2024

¶29

Section 113 (4) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1993'). The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the orders impugned in this writ petition are liable to be challenged before an appellate authority as provided under Section 113(4) of the Act, 1993. In view of the aforesaid submission, no indulgence can be granted in this writ petition to disturb the resolution dated 07.03.2024 and the order dated 25.03.2024.

¶30

3. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed, on

¶31

the ground that an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner before the appropriate authority as provided under Section 113(4) of the Act, 1993.

¶32

It is open for the petitioners to file an appropriate appeal before the appellate authority, as prescribed in Section 113(4) of the Act, 1993, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until then, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not recruit any person to the post of the petitioners.

¶33

It is open for the respondents to file appropriate application in the appeal that may be filed, for stay of the impugned orders. The above order directing respondent Nos.2

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39279 WP No. 13283 of 2024

¶35

and 3 not to recruit any person till the date of filling the appeal, shall not be construed that the case of the petitioners is worthy of consideration. The appellate authority shall independently consider the appeal as well as the application for stay in accordance with law.

¶36

In view of the disposal of this petition, pending

¶37

applications stand consigned to the record.

¶38

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶39

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri Ashwathanarayana T v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ashwathanarayana T v. Vs 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. Y. B. Raghavendra Vs the General Manager (a and Hr)

Shri Suraj Jayadeep Sunita Vs Vijaya Bank

Sri Santosh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.G.R.Narayanaswamy Vs the Deputy General Manager

Dr Sreedhara C G Vs State of Karnataka

S N Shivashankar Vs the State of Karnataka