Sri Aleemulla Khan Vs the Superintending Engineer

SRI. ALEEMULLA KHAN, S/O LATE MD. PEER KHAN, AGED 64 YEARS, RTD JUNIOR ENGINEER, KPTCL, R/AT NM 2333, 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND PHASE, NEAR MASJID –E - KAIF, RAJIVNAGAR, MYSORE – 570 019.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., BESIDE CHIKKAMANNANIKETANA CHOULTRY, JODI BASAVESHWARA ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE – 570 023.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) TERMINATION LINE AND SUB STATION (TL AND SS) HOOTAGALLI DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISION COMPANY LTD., PRASARANA BHAVANA, F.T.S. COMPOUND NARASIMHARAJA MOHALA MYSORE – 570 007.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:7764 WP No. 19900 of 2021

¶18

THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., NO 29, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE HINKAL, MYSORE – 570 017.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. PADMA .S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. B.G. NAYANTARA ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER, THE PETITIONER ALSO GAVE REPRESENTATIONS, REQUESTING TO SETTLE HIS PENSIONARY BENEFITS, COPIES OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 05.09.2019 ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F, F1 TO FIX THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS AS PER THE CIRCULARS AND ORDERS OF THE BOARD AS PER REVISED PAY SCALE VIDE BOARD ORDERS DATED 09.03.2018. COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H AND KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED ANNEXURE-II TO ORDER DATED 09.03.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H1.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7764 WP No. 19900 of 2021

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, Junior Engineer of first respondentChamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short “CHESCOM”) is before this Court, praying for a writ of mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.09.2019 (Annexure-E) submitted to the Managing Director of KPTCL.

¶27

Heard learned counsel Sri.Kaleemullah Shariff for petitioner and Smt.Padma S Uttur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 as well as Smt.B.G.Nayana Tara, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired on 30.11.2017 and his pensionary benefits were settled belatedly on 15.06.2018. Further, learned counsel would submit that pension is not fixed properly and for the belated settlement of terminal benefits, the petitioner would be entitled for interest. In that regard, petitioner has submitted representation to the

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:7764 WP No. 19900 of 2021

¶31

Managing Director of KPTCL which is pending

¶32

consideration. Hence, he seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider the said representation.

¶33

On the other hand, Smt.Padma S Uttur, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format for pension only on 22.12.2016 and subsequently on processing the said application, the petitioner was paid terminal benefits on 05.06.2018. Learned counsel would further submit that an employee who is to retire shall submit application for pension in the prescribed form, 12 months in advance which the petitioner has failed to submit.

¶34

Learned counsel Sri.Kaleemullah Shariff would invite attention of this Court to Rule 240 of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Regulations and submits that on the ground of non-submission of application, the respondents cannot put off, the process of sanctioning pension and

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7764 WP No. 19900 of 2021

¶36

pensionary benefits. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the representation submitted by the petitioner is not to the respondents herein. The petitioner could make representation to the appropriate authorities i.e., respondents herein, seeking for settlement of his pensionary benefits and payment of interest. If such representation is made, I am sure that the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.

¶38

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶40

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶41

MPK

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri Aleemulla Khan v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Aleemulla Khan v. the Superintending Engineer

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

M/S. Ksa Social Action Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Narasimha Murthy Vs the Union of India

Sri Girish K Vs the Director

T Gopala Vs the State of Karnataka

Kaushik Ram P Vs State Bank of India

Venkatesh Vs the Principal Secretary