Dismissed¶82

Yasin Khan S/O Ahmed Khan Mudugal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2025WP/105258/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Dharwad writ petition mandamus salary dues Grama Panchayat bill collector deceased petitioner muster roll seniority promotion minimum wages Rs.7930 misappropriation Rs.1,41,617 undertaking unauthorised absence inebriated disputed reinstatement facts terminal benefits widow rejected M. Nagaprasanna

What did the court decide?

The claims turned on seriously disputed questions of fact (particularly reinstatement after the 2018 communication) which the Court declined to thrash out, especially as the petitioner himself was no more; bringing the family into the proceedings on those facts would be 'neither here nor there'. ¶79

Yasin Khan S/O Ahmed Khan Mudugal Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.4 (Grama Panchayat Tuluvagera) must pay and clear the petitioner's salary dues as per the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat direction in letter No. Taa.Pan.Ku/Gra.Pan/B.Ka/C.R/2016-17/645 dated 20-08-2016 (Annexure-L), till date. +5 more

¶30

Ratio / Principle

¶79

Key takeaways

Given the petitioner's conduct throughout his service - misappropriation, remaining absent, attending office once in eight days and in an inebriated state without performing duties - he was admittedly entitled to no relief.ratio¶79
Although a disciplinary enquiry ought to have been conducted for the alleged misconduct, none was carried out; the Court nonetheless held that nothing was thereby lost to the petitioner(s).ratio¶79
The petition did not deserve any indulgence and, lacking in merit, stood rejected - disposing of the prayers for salary dues, muster-roll permission, seniority/promotion/minimum-wage fixation and salary arrears.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), Writ Petition No. 105258 of 2019 (S-RES), oral order dated 04-12-2025: A deceased Grama Panchayat bill collector's Article 226 petition seeking (i) payment of salary dues per the CEO, Zilla Panchayat letter dated 20-08-2016, (ii) permission to sign the muster roll, (iii) consideration for seniority, promotion and fixation of minimum wages at Rs.7930/- p.m. per G.O. dated 22-05-2015, and (iv) payment of salary arrears, is rejected for want of merit. The Court found the claims rested on seriously disputed questions of fact (whether the petitioner was reinstated after the 2018 Taluk Panchayat direction) and, with the petitioner dead, declined to adjudicate; on his service record of misappropriation (Rs.1,41,617/- alleged, Rs.30,000/- repaid under the 20-06-2017 undertaking), unauthorised absence from 2012 and attendance in an inebriated state, he was admittedly entitled to no relief; though an enquiry ought to have been conducted, none was, and the Court held nothing was lost. Rejection will not bar the widow/legal representatives from claiming accrued terminal benefits: a representation made within four weeks is to be considered by the Grama Panchayath within twelve weeks thereafter, strictly per law.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105258 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

YASIN KHAN S/O. AHMED KHAN MUDUGAL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: TAX COLLECTOR, GRAMA PANCHAYAT TULUVAGERA, R/O: NIDASHESI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. D. L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KUSHTAGI-583277, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶16

THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT TULUVAGERA BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶17

TQ: KUSHTAGI-583277, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶18

THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT TULUVAGERA BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TALUKA: KUSHTAGI-583277, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP; SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5; R2 AND R4 ARE SERAVED)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECING RESPONDENT NO.4 TO PAY AND CLEAR SALARY DUES OF PETITIONER AS PER DIRECTION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT DIRECTIONS, AS PER LETTER NO.Taa.Pam.Ku/Gra.Pan/B.Ka/C.R/2016-17/645 DATED 20.08.2016, AT ANNEXURE-L, TILL DATE AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶29

following prayer:

¶30

(1) Issue any appropriate writ or Direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.4 to pay and clear salary dues of petitioner as per direction of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchyat directions, as per letter No. Taa.Pan.Ku/Gra.Pan/B.Ka/C.R/2016-17/645 dated 20-08-2016, at ANNEXURE- L, till date, in the interest of justice.

¶31

(2) Issue any appropriate writ or Direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.4 to permit petitioner to sign muster roll and record his attendance.

¶32

(3) Issue any appropriate writ or Direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to consider case of petitioner for seniority, promotion and for fixing minimum wages for gram panchyat and local body employees, at Rs. 7930/PM, as per the G.O. bearing No. Kaa E 71 LWA 2015 dated 22-05-2015 is produced at ANNEXURE-H, in the interest of justice.

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

(4) Issue any appropriate writ or Direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to 4 to pay the arrear of salary dues of petitioner as per the G.O. bearing No.Kaa E71 LWA 2015 dated 22.05.2015 is produced at ANNEXURE-H in the interest of justice.

¶36

Heard Shri D.L. Ladkhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1; Shri Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 5.

¶37

The petitioner today is no more. Learned counsel Shri D.L. Ladkhan submits that right to sue would survive, if this Court would render the reason that the petitioner was entitled to some monetary benefits. Therefore, the matter is taken up.

¶38

The petitioner during his lifetime was appointed as a Bill Collector in Tuluvagera Panchayath, Kushtagi Taluka pursuant to a process of recruitment. The petitioner served the Grama Panchayath upto 2012. In 2012, began to remain unauthorisedly absent. Owing to the unauthorised absence of the petitioner, a communication is made on 21.07.2012 to the petitioner. The communication reads as follows.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

“UÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw PÀÄµÀÖV

¶43

EªÀjUÉ

¶44

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ.

¶45

«µÀAiÀÄ:PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀgÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. G¯ÉèÃR(1):- PÀæ.¸ÀA.UÁæ.¥À.PÁ.vÀ/ 2011-12 ¢£ÁAPÀ 28/11/2011 G¯ÉèÃR(2):- PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ£ÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 14/06/2012 G¯ÉèÃR(3):- PÀæ.¸ÀA.UÁæ.¥À.PÁ.vÀ/ 2011-13 ¢£ÁAPÀ 28/06/2012 ¥ÀæZÁªÁtÂ, «dAiÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£À¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è£À ¥ÀæPÀluÉ ªÀgÀ¢.

¶46

ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌtÂ¹zÀ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄzÉ£ÀAzÀgÉ vÀ¼ÀÄªÀUÉgÁ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀëgÀ AiÀiÁ¹£ïSÁ£ï ªÀÄÄzÀUÀ¯ï EªÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀjUÉ G¯ÉèÃR(1) gÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28/11/2011 gÀAzÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÁzÀ rªÀiÁåAqÀ gÀf¸ÀÖgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ¹Ã¢ §ÄPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÃ½PÉÆAqÀgÀÄ EzÀÆªÀgÉUÀÆ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ¢®è F «µÀAiÀÄªÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ zÀAiÀiÁ¥ÀgÀ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ G¯ÉèÃR(2) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14/06/2012 gÀAzÀÄ PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ ¸ÁªÀÄ£Àå ¸À¨sÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05/07/2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À£É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV vÀ¼ÀÄªÀUÉÃgÁ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ oÀgÁªÀ£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶47

G¯ÉèÃR(3) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28/06/2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæeÁªÁtÂ, «dAiÀÄPÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£À¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è£À ¥ÀæPÀluÉ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ ªÀ¸Àw AiÉÆÃd£É ªÀÄ£É £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀÄªÀzÀPÁÌV PÀÄµÀÖV G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÁtÂ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀÄ¨sÀ«UÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÉ «Ä¤ «zsÁ£À¸ËzÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀå ¸ÉÃ«¹ JZÀÑgÀ PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ.¥Á£ÀªÀÄvÀÛgÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÉ. ªÉÄ¯ÁÌtÂ¹zÀ G¯ÉèÃRUÀ½UÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ¸ÀzÀj PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀgÀ £ÀqÀvÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀ¢®è. C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀÄºÁdj DUÀÄvÁÛgÉ. JAlÄ ¢£ÀPÉÆÌªÉÄä §AzÀÄ ºÁdjUÉ ¸À» ºÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ §gÀzÉ vÀªÀÄä ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÁÌV PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀåxÀðªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀgÁzÀ -

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

AiÀiÁ¹£ï SÁ£ï ªÀÄÄzÀUÀ¯ï EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ²¹Û£À PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃªÉ.

¶52

¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ C©üªÀÈ¢üÞ C¢üPÁj UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ vÀ¼ÀÄªÀUÉÃj] vÁ: PÀÄµÀÖV, f: PÉÆ¥Àà¼À"

¶53

The communication is indicative of the fact that the

¶54

petitioner had misappropriated certain amounts and was regularly irregular to his work and was attending the office eight days once at his whim and fancy and marking attendance eight days once. The petitioner was issued further notice on 29.06.2012, it reads as follows:

¶55

"PÁgÀt PÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ï

¶56

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¢£ÁAPÀ 28.06.2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæeÁªÁtÂ, «dAiÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£À ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è£À ¥ÀæPÀluÉ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

¶57

F ªÉÄÃ°£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉÃPÀÖgï DzÀ AiÀiÁ¹Ã£ï SÁ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28-06-2012 gÀAzÀÄ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀ D¦üÃ¸ïUÉ D±ÀæAiÀÄ, EA¢ügÁ ºÁUÀÆ CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀÄ¨sÀ«UÀ¼À gÀf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è EzÁÝUÀ¯ÉÃ ªÀÄzsÀå¥Á£À ¸ÉÃªÀ£É ªÀiÁr, ¥Á£ÀªÀÄvÀÛgÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¢£À ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀluÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶58

EzÀPÀÄÌ ªÉÆÃzÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ªÀiËTPÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ °TvÀªÁV £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀ GvÀÛgÀªÀÅ vÀ«ÄäAzÀ §A¢ügÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉÆ¼ÀUÁV GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß zÀAiÀiÁ¥ÀgÀ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ UËgÀªÀ ¥ÀÇªÀðPÀªÁV ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019

HC-KAR

¸À»

After issuance of plethora of notices, the petitioner is

¶65

said to have appeared before the authority and gives an undertaking that he would repay the entire amount. The undertaking is as follows:

¶66

“M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ

¶67

¸À£ï. JgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÃ¼À£ÉÃ E¹éAiÀÄ dÆ£ï wAUÀ¼À E¥ÀàvÀÛ£ÉÃ vÁjÃT£À°è ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ UÁæ.¥ÀA. vÀ¼ÀÄªÀUÉÃgÁ vÁ:PÀÄµÀÖV EªÀjUÉ,

¶68

£Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁ²Ã£ï SÁ£À vÀA: CºÀäzÀSÁ£À ªÀÄÄzÀUÀ¯ï PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ vÀ¼ÀÄªÀUÉÃgÁ vÁ.PÀÄµÀÖV F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀÄªÀ M¦àUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ K£ÉAzÀgÉ,

¶69

¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ vÀ¼ÀÄªÀUÉÃgÁ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ°è PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ£ÉAzÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå »A¢£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ºÀt zÀÄ§ð¼ÀPÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.141617 gÀÆ. ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀ½ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ SÁvÁ ¸ÀASÉå: 1033 PÉÌ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ-UÁæ.¥ÀA.¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄªÀ½PÉAiÀÄAvÉ ªÉÆzÀ® PÀAvÁV 2:12-06-2017 0 0.30,000/- (2) G½zÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ £À£Àß ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÀÄlÄA§ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉUÁV C®à¸Àé®à ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ G½zÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£ÉAzÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀAvÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£ÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ gÀÆ.50/-???? PÁUÀzÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¤d«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¥ÀæweÁÕzsÁgÀPÀ

¸ÀÜ¼À: vÀ¼ÀÄªÀUÉÃgÁ

¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-06-2017

AiÀiÁ²Ã£ïSÁ£À vÀA: CºÀäzÀSÁ£À ªÀÄÄzÀUÀ¯ï

¶74

PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀ

¶75

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ vÀ¼ÀÄªÀUÉÃgÁ

¶78

vÁ: PÀÄµÀÖV”

¶79

The amount of misappropriation was at ₹1,41,617/-, out of which in terms of the agreement the petitioner is said to have repaid ₹30,000/-. After the repayment, the petitioner is said to have remained again absent. It transpires that in the year 2018, the Taluk Panchayat communicates to the Grama Panchayat to take the petitioner back to duties. The contention of the petitioner is that they never took the petitioner back to duties. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner never appeared before the Grama Panchayath for him to take back to duties. These are all in the realm of seriously disputed questions of facts. To thrash out today the employee himself is not there. Bringing in the family into these proceedings in the aforesaid facts would neither here nor there, as the petitioner admittedly is not entitled to any relief for his conduct throughout his service, as it was a case of misappropriation and always being in the office in an inebriated state and not performing his duties. With all these allegations, though enquiry ought to have been conducted. But In the case at hand nothing has been done and nothing has been lost by the petitioners. In that light, the

¶80

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17233 WP No. 105258 of 2019

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

petition does not deserve any indulgence. The petition lacking in merit stands rejected.

¶83

The rejection of this petition will not come in the way

¶84

of the wife submitting a representation seeking the terminal benefits accrued to the hands of the husband, who is now no more to be paid to the wife. The dismissal of this petition will not influence the Grama Panchayath to disburse any terminal benefits that the wife or the legal representatives of the petitioner would be entitled to. The same shall be considered in accordance with law and disbursed to the wife in the event of claim being made.

¶85

In the event such a representation would spring from the hands of the wife of the petitioner within four weeks from today, the Grama Panchayath shall consider the same within twelve weeks thereafter, strictly in consonance with law.

¶86

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶87

VNP / CT: ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Yasin Khan S/O Ahmed Khan Mudugal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasin Khan S/O Ahmed Khan Mudugal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Manik S/O. Manohar Shinde Vs Siddanna S/O. Ningappa Ramapura

Lalappa L Pammar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj S/O Ramchandra Suryavanshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Inayathunnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Yuvaraj S/O Ramu Shinde Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Raghavendra R S/O Ramachar Vs the State of Karnataka