Sri. Basavalingappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.03/2021-22 DD 04.02.2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE R2 HEREIN, CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTION TO PAY THE MONTHLY REMUNERATION FROM JULY 2021 TO TILL DATE TO R3.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40472 WP No. 11033 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR EARLY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶38

"(a) Consequently issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to pay the monthly remuneration from July 2021 to till date to respondant no.3.

¶39

(b) issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction by quashing the impugned order No 03/2021-22 dated 04.02.2022 produced at Annexure-'J' issued by the respondent No.2 herein,

¶40

(b1) Directing the petitioner for reinstatement to the services with full back wages from the date of termination order dated 04.02.2022 till date of reinstatement of the petitioner to the service.

¶41

(c). grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice"

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is confining his prayer only to prayer (a) and is

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:40472 WP No. 11033 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

not pressing the writ petition in so far as prayers (b) and

¶47

(b1) are concerned.

¶48

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

¶49

2.1. The petitioner was a qualified person and he

¶50

has been appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist in respondent No.4-Office on a consolidated monthly remuneration on 01.07.2016 on a contract basis. Respondent No.4, vide order dated 04.02.2022, terminated the petitioner from service on the ground that the contract period came to an end. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2022 vide Annexure-J, filed a writ petition in WP No.4662/2022. This Court, vide order dated 06.04.2023, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to approach the District Legal Services Authority, Ramanagar for the payment of remuneration. After the dismissal of the said writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-L on 17.04.2023. It is

¶51

5 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:40472 WP No. 11033 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

submitted that, the respondents did not consider the representation vide Annexure-L. Hence, this writ petition.

¶55

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the liberty reserved by this Court in WP No.4662/2022, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-L. He submits that, the respondents have not passed any order on the said representation. He submits that, a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the representation in accordance with law.

¶57

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that, if reasonable time is granted to respondents No.2 to 4, they would consider the

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40472 WP No. 11033 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

representation vide Annexure-L and pass an appropriate

¶61

orders.

¶62

In view of the submission made by learned

¶63

counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i. The writ petition is allowed ;

¶66

ii. Respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to consider the representation dated 17.04.2023 submitted by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶67

iii. In view of disposal of the petition, IA No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of.

¶68

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

¶70

PA CT:KHV

Sri. Basavalingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Basavalingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K H Srikar Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rathnamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Nalina G S Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

M R Sadhashivappa Vs the Director (a and Hr)

Smt Amrith B Kiran Vs Mangalore Catholic Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Smt Priyanka Vs the Chief Manager