Sri. Sridhar v. S/O N. Venkoba Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (MUNCIPAL CORPORATION) VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001

¶18

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9^TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER KALABURGI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KALABURAGI 585101

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17711 WP No. 100277 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE COMMISSIONER HUBLI DHARWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHARWAD 580001

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. G.I. GACHCHINMATH, ADV. FOR R4; SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV. FOR R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS, PARTICULARLY RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND 3 AS PER ANNEXURE D AND ANNEXURE F DATED 18.04.2022 AND 28.09.2022 TO RELEASE 300 DAYS OF EARNED LEAVE ENCASHMENT BENEFITS WITH APPLICABLE INTEREST AND TO GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.,

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶31

following prayer:

¶32

i. “Issue a writ of mandamus in directing the respondents, particularly respondent No. 1 and 3 as per Annexure D and Annexure F dated 18.04.2022 and 28.09.2022 to release 300 days of earned leave encashment benefits with applicable interest and to grant all consequential benefits.

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17711 WP No. 100277 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ii. Pass such other orders as deemed fir in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶37

The petitioner is an erstwhile employee of the HubliDharwad City Municipal Corporation. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 08.12.2020. The petitioner thereafter submitted a claim seeking release of his leave encashment. The said leave encashment was not granted on the ground that a charge sheet had been issued against him and a departmental enquiry is pending. The petitioner then submitted a representation contending that the enquiry is not progressing and, therefore, his leave encashment and other terminal benefits be released.

¶38

In the light of the enquiry being pending, the employee cannot seek release of the entire terminal benefits. However, if the enquiry commenced on 31.01.2021, it is rather surprising as to how the enquiry remains pending for nearly four years.

¶39