Allowed

Sri C C Ashok v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2024WP/2261/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of the Deputy Commissioner in considering the petitioner's requests for repatriation to his parental department. The court allowed the petition and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the representations and proposals within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner) directed to consider representations and proposal for repatriation within 12 weeks.

Sri C C Ashok Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:15103 WP No. 2261 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2261 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI.C.C.ASHOK S/O CHANNAVEERSHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AN EMPLOYEE OF WATER SUPPLY DIVISION TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHRAVANABELAGOLA AND PRESENTLY WORKING AS FITTER IN GRAM PANCHAYATH WATER SUPPLY DIVISION SHRAVANABELAGOLA GRAM PANCHAYATH SHARAVANABELAGOLA R/O CHANNARAYAPATNA MAIN ROAD, TOWN MUNICIPAL QUARTERS GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL SHRAVANABELAGOLA CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN – 573 135

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:15103 WP No. 2261 of 2024

¶15

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶16

BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V.V. TOWER, 9^TH FLOOR DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201

¶19

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH HASSAN-573201

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH CHANNARAYAPATNA-573 135

¶21

CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHANNARAYAPATNA – 573 135 HASSAN DISTRICT

¶22

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAM PANCHAYATH SHRAVANABELAGOLA -573 135 HASSAN DISTRICT

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 TO R.7)

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:15103 WP No. 2261 of 2024

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO 6 FOR CONSIDERING THE PROPOSALS OF THE R7 DTD 08.12.2023 AND FOR ACCORDING APPROVAL OF IT, TO ENABLE THE PETITIONER FOR REPORTING FOR DUTY TO THIS PARENTAL DEPARTMENT NAMELY, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHANNARAYAPATNA, VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The captioned writ petition is filed alleging inaction of respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner in not considering petitioner’s representation, where a request is made by the petitioner to repatriate and place his services at the disposal of his parental department.

¶30

Facts leading to the case are as under;

¶31

The petitioner was initially appointed as

¶32

Watermen/fitter at Karnataka Urban Water Supply Development Board. After abolition of Interim Mandal Panchayath at Shravanabelagola on 13.01.1995 and on constitution of Gram Panchayaths, the State Government

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:15103 WP No. 2261 of 2024

¶35

secured the list of Municipal Employees working in Gram Panchayath and advised to send clarifications for deputing the said Grama Panchayath Employees to other departments. The Gram Panchayath, Shravanabelagola furnished information sindicating that about 20 employees comprising of permanent and temporary are discharging duties at Gram Panchayath and the name of the petitioner was also indicated in the said list.

¶36

Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 13.10.2014 called upon respondent No.3 to take suitable

¶37

action and comply the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19563/2014.

¶38

The petitioner’s grievance is that he has submitted series of representations dated 30.05.2015, 28.12.2018, 16.08.2022, 20.03.2023, 21.04.2023 and 07.07.2023. The petitioner is also placing reliance on the resolution passed by respondent No.7, wherein respondent No.7 has resolved that petitioner is entitled for repatriation

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15103 WP No. 2261 of 2024

¶40

to the parental department and place his services at the disposal of Town Municipal Council, Channarayapatna. The petitioner has also cited repatriation order passed by respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner in respect of similarly placed employees.

¶41

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

petitioner, learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. Perused the records.

¶43

The crux of the dispute revolves around as to

¶44

whether petitioner is entitled to be repatriated to the parental department i.e., the Town Municipal Council. The petitioner asserts that the similarly placed employees, who are at par with petitioner, are considered for repatriation and the order passed by respondent No.3 in an identical case is also indicated in the captioned writ petition.

¶45

The petitioner claims that respondent No.3 has

¶46

already repatriated one Sri.Annappa by treating him as a Municipal Employee and the said employee is conferred

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:15103 WP No. 2261 of 2024

¶49

with all service benefits by treating him as a regular employee of Town Municipal Council.

¶50

Whether petitioner has acquired requisite eligibility criteria to be treated as a regular employee and is similarly placed as that of Sri.Annappa so as to seek repatriation to the parental department, is a matter to be dealt by respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner.

¶51

This is a clear case of laxness on the part of respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner. These representations are spanning over 2015 to 2023. Respondent No.3, in terms of direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.19563/2014 and having regard to the fact that similarly placed employees have been repatriated to the parental department, is under bounden duty to consider the representations. Prima-facie, the petitioner has a legal right to seek repatriation. Therefore, respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner has to examine

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:15103 WP No. 2261 of 2024

¶54

as to whether prayer sought in the captioned writ petition

¶55

can be granted to the petitioner.

¶56

For the foregoing reasons, this Court

¶57

proceeds to pass the following;

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶60

(ii) Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 30.05.2015, 28.12.2018, 16.08.2022, 20.03.2023, 21.04.2023, 22.12.2023 vide Annexures-K and K1 series and Annexure-N by taking cognizance of the proposal sent by respondent No.7 on 08.12.2023 as per Annexure-M.

¶61

(iii) This exercise shall be accomplished by respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:15103 WP No. 2261 of 2024

¶64

(iv) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

NBM

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri C C Ashok v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C C Ashok 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

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

Sri. Durgesh H Vs Secretary to Government

Sri. Lokesh M v Vs the State of Karnataka