Partly allowed¶47

T S Vijay Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2025WP/11246/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Old Pension Scheme; representation Annexure-S dated 29.11.2024; mandamus to consider representation; Central Relief Committee, Beggars Colony, Sumanahalli; Karnataka State Construction Corporation closure; VRS vs absorption; W.P.No.869 of 2009; W.A.No.2790/2010; W.P.No.10019/2021 (Division Bench, disposed 26.05.2022); Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; eight weeks compliance; Justice Ashok S.Kinagi; WP No. 11246 of 2025 (S-RES); NC: 2025:KHC:40793; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; writ petition allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-S) in terms of the Division Bench order in W.P.No.10019/2021 (disposed of on 26.05.2022) within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶47

T S Vijay Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-S) for extending old pension scheme benefits, in terms of the Division Bench order in WP No.10019 of 2021 disposed of on 26.05.2022 (Annexure-T).

¶31

Court's answer

Writ petition allowed in part: on the Additional Government Advocate's submission, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-S) in terms of the Division Bench order in W.P.No.10019/2021 disposed of on 26.05.2022, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner's entitlement to the old pension scheme was left to be considered by the respondents and was not independently adjudicated.

¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (single Judge, Ashok S.Kinagi, J.), by oral order dated 14.10.2025 in WP No. 11246 of 2025 (S-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, partly allowed the petition of T S Vijay Kumar, who worked on daily wages/contract basis until regularization in 1998, was deputed in 2008 to the Central Relief Committee as Clerk-cum-Typist/Second Division Assistant, and whose representation dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-S) claiming the old pension scheme had elicited no order from the respondents (State of Karnataka, Department of Social Welfare, and the Central Relief Committee). Recording the Additional Government Advocate's submission that the representation would be considered if reasonable time was granted, the Court directed the respondents to consider the representation in terms of the Division Bench order in W.P.No.10019/2021 disposed of on 26.05.2022, within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. The background litigation (W.P.No.869 of 2009; W.A.No.2790/2010) concerned VRS options versus absorption of Karnataka State Construction Corporation employees, with the Division Bench directing absorption of all employees.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40793 WP No. 11246 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 11246 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

T S VIJAY KUMAR S/O T.N. SATHYANARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT AKSHAYA MANSION, F-102, 1^ST FLOOR, NO.148, 4^TH MAIN, GOVINDARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUMUKHA C.G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:40793 WP No. 11246 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶19

CENTRAL RELIEF COMMITTEE

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BEGGARS COLONY, SUMANAHALLI,

¶21

BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO INCLUDE THE PETITIONER UNDER THE OLD PENSION SCHEME BY EXTENDING THE SAME BENEFITS CONFERRED UPON OTHER SIMILARLY PLACED EMPLOYEES AS ORDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.10019/2021 DATED 26.05.2022 (ANNEXURE 'T') AND/OR DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT AND RELEASE THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS ACCORDING TO THE OLD PENSION SCHEME WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME, AND/OR DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY INTEREST AT 18 PERCENT FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT OR RELEASE OF PENSION TO THE PETITIONER, AND/OR ALTERNATIVELY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2024 (ANNEXURE 'S') WITHIN A TIME FRAME PRESCRIBED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:40793 WP No. 11246 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation vide Annexure-S in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.10019 of 2021 disposed of on 26.05.2022 vide Annexure-T.

¶32

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

¶33

The petitioner was working on a daily wages/contract basis until his services were regularized in 1998. In 2008, due to the requirement, the petitioner was deputed to the Central Relief Committee, and was posted as a Clerk-cum-Typist/Second Division Assistant. Due to financial crisis, the Karnataka State Construction Corporation was set for closure, and the employees of the corporation were being absorbed in

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:40793 WP No. 11246 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

various other Government departments and Boards having vacancies. However, there were some employees who were not absorbed and were being asked to opt for VRS. Some of the employees approached this court in W.P.No.869 of 2009 and connected cases. This court based on the writ petition accepted the option of VRS. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.2790/2010 and connected cases. The division bench set aside the order passed by the learned single judge in the writ petition and directed the Government to ensure all the employees are absorbed and until such time they shall be allowed to continue in their respective posts. The petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-S contending that he is eligible for old pension scheme. The respondents are not taking any steps to include his name for providing the benefit of old pension scheme. Hence, this writ petition.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40793 WP No. 11246 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite submitting the representation, the respondents have not passed any order on Annexure-S. He submits that the respondents be directed to consider the representation in terms of the order passed by the Division bench of this Court in the case in the W.P.No.10019/2021 dated 26.05.2022. Accordingly, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶42

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if reasonable time is granted to the respondents, the respondents would consider the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 29.11.2024 vide Annexure-S in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.10019/2021.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40793 WP No. 11246 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

In view of the submission made by the Learned Additional Government Advocate, I pass the following order:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶48

ii. The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2024 vide Annexure-S in terms of the order passed by the division bench of this Court in W.P.No.10019/2021 disposed of on 26.05.2022, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶49

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶50

SKS

¶51

CT:KHV

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

T S Vijay Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T S Vijay Kumar v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Dr K C Jayaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Lakshman B D Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Vs Smt Pratibha Daisy