Disposed

Sri. K Udyashankara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2024WP/32820/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Special Public Prosecutor sought payment of arrears of remuneration for part of his tenure, which had been denied despite a co-SPP under the same notification being paid the difference. The court directed respondent No. 1 to consider his claim on par with the co-SPP within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 1 to consider petitioner's claim for difference in remuneration for 24.08.2009 to 03.11.2011 on par with S.P. Shashidhar, within three months.

Sri. K Udyashankara Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:29921 WP No. 32820 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 32820 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K. UDYASHANKARA, S/O LATE SRI. K. MUKUNDA NAYAK, AGED 68 YEARS, ADVOCATE (RETIRED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR), VASISTA, DARBE, PUTTUR, DHAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 202.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION-1), VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, (LAW AND ORDER COFEPOSA AND PROSECUTIONS), VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, CAUVERY BHAVAN,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29921 WP No. 32820 of 2017

¶16

MYSURU BANK CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.SAVITHA KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-3 [PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A]; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.10.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE RESPONDENTS [PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M] AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor for the Fast Track Court, Puttur, by notification dated 12.08.2009. Similarly, one S.P. Shashidhar was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for the Fast Track Court, Bengaluru, under the same notification. The petitioner was relieved from the services of Special Public Prosecutor on 05.11.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking payment of arrears of remuneration.

¶24

The petitioner’s request was not considered, prompting him to approach this Court in W.P. No. 4716/2015. This Court, by order dated 18.02.2015, directed the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. Despite this direction, the representation was not

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29921 WP No. 32820 of 2017

¶26

considered, leading the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings before this Court in CCC No. 986/2016. Following the direction issued by this Court, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 1,30,869/- for the period from 04.07.2011 to 05.11.2012. However, the arrears of remuneration for the period from 24.08.2009 to 03.11.2011 were not paid, which led the petitioner to initiate further contempt proceedings before this Court in CCC No. 986/2016. This Court, by order dated 14.11.2016, dropped the contempt proceedings, stating that if the petitioner was not satisfied with the outcome, he could file substantive proceedings before the appropriate forum.

¶27

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent on 07.10.2016. The petitioner’s grievance is that, although S.P. Shashidhar, who was appointed as SPP under the same notification, has been paid the difference in remuneration for the period from 12.08.2009 to 21.10.2011 in light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 691/2013, the petitioner has been deprived of the same benefit.

¶28

The learned AGA submits that respondent No. 1 must consider the petitioner’s claim for payment of the difference in remuneration for the period from 12.08.2009 to 21.10.2011.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:29921 WP No. 32820 of 2017

¶31

This Court, in respect of similarly situated persons in W.P. No. 691/2013, directed the respondent therein to consider the petitioner’s claim for payment of the difference in remuneration for the said period on par with the payments made to Ganapathi Prassanna and Sri N.C. Sanjeevan.

¶32

Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner’s claim for payment of the difference in remuneration for the period from 24.08.2009 to 03.11.2011 on par with the payment made to S.P. Shashidhar, in light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 691/2013.

¶33

This exercise shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶35

RKA

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri. K Udyashankara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K Udyashankara 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 H Kumar Vs Sri Anil Kumar

Vasudev L Vs the Manager, M/S Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

Shivappa @ Shivakumar Vs Manjunath Jd @ Rajanna

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs Assistant Commissioner of Police

Smt Raginiyamma Vs State of Karnataka

Udaya G P Vs the Chief Manager and Authorized Officer, Karnataka Bank Ltd.