Allowed

M N Kavitha v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2024WP/13584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka issued a mandamus directing a cooperative society to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits within three months, noting a delay of over a year since her voluntary retirement and relieving order.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to settle retirement benefits within three months; 8% p.a. interest from date of relief till payment.

M N Kavitha Vs Assistant Registrar of Co… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41249 WP No. 13584 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13584 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M N KAVITHA, W/O M N BOPPIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O G B ROAD, MADANAPATNA POST, KUSHALNAGAR - 571 234.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI GIRISH J, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HUNSURU SUB DIVISION, HUNSURU - 571 105.

¶13

KARIMUDANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KARIMUDANAHALLI, HUNSURU TALUK - 571 189. REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - DIRECT THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41249 WP No. 13584 of 2024

¶18

RESPONDENT NO.2 TO SETTLE THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE - D DATED 16.05.2022 AND ALSO AS PER THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 16.05.2023 VIDE SANI43/SIBBANDI/C1/PR-01/SI.NI.BHATHYE.DOORU/2023-24 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to settle the retirement benefits as per her representation dated 16.05.2022 and also as per the direction issued by respondent No.1 vide No.¸À¤-43/¹§âA¢/¹1/¦Dgï-01/¹.¤.¨sÀvÉå.zÀÆgÀÄ/2023-24 dated 16.05.2023.

¶22

The petitioner contends that after working for 30 years in respondent No.2, she applied for voluntary retirement and as per her representation, she was relieved on 10.05.2022. She requested the respondent No.2 by a representation dated 16.05.2022 to settle her retirement benefits. Following this, the petitioner also submitted a representation dated 17.05.2022 to respondent No.1, seeking for a direction to

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41249 WP No. 13584 of 2024

¶24

respondent No.2 to settle her dues and other retirement benefits. Respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 16.05.2023 to respondent No.2. Nonetheless, respondent No.2 did not take any action to settle the dues. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to respondent No.2.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

¶26

above contentions and sought for an appropriate direction.

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate who represents respondent No.1 submits that, if the petitioner has sought for voluntary retirement as per the scheme brought out by respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is bound to act in accordance with the scheme. He submits that based on the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has addressed a communication to the respondent No.2 to settle the benefits.

¶28

In view of the fact that the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement and was relieved on 10.05.2022, the respondent No.2 was bound to settle the retirement benefits unless there was any enquiry pending against the petitioner. The very fact that the petitioner's request for voluntary

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41249 WP No. 13584 of 2024

¶30

retirement was accepted and she was relieved from service makes it beyond doubt that there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. If the services of the petitioner was relieved on 10.05.2022, the respondent No.2 ought to have settled the benefits within a period of one month. Since that is not done, the respondent No.2 deserves to be directed to settle the benefits as early as possible at any rate within a period of three months by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 16.05.2022, as well as the direction of respondent No.1 dated 16.05.2023.

¶31

It is made clear that if the respondent No.3 fails to settle the retirement dues, the same shall attract interest at 8% p.a from the date the petitioner was relieved from duty till the date of payment.

¶32

Consequently, this writ petition is disposed off on

¶33

the above terms.

¶34

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶35

THM

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

M N Kavitha v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M N Kavitha v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

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

Rythara Seva Sahakara Sangha Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative

Sri. Sridhar Vedula Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. P Shivaprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen Kumari Vs the Director of Municipal Administration

Dr Jagannath Olekar Vs University of Agricultural Sciences

Lokesh K Vs State of Karnataka