Sri. Laxman Basappa Pattar Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TREAT THE PERIOD 15 YEARS IN SUB-RULE (14) OF RULE 376 OF KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICE RULES 1958 AS 10 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS (128 MONTHS) FOR RECOVERY OF LUMPSUM AMOUNT PAID TO THE PETITIONER IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENT FROM PENSION PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER AND TO EXTEND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ARISING THERETO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1424 WP No. 100588 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶33

a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the period 15 years in sub-rule (14) of Rule 376 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules 1958 as 10 years and 8 months (128 months) for recovery of lumpsum amount paid to the petitioner in monthly installment from pension payable to the petitioner and to extend all consequential benefits arising thereto, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

b) Issue any other order or direction, directing the respondents to refund the excess amount of commutation of pension having already been recovered from the petitioner who has paid more than 10 years and 8 months as per the representation dated 25/10/2025 vide Annexure-D and direct the respondent No.1 to 4 to pay full pension to the petitioner.

¶35

c) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1424 WP No. 100588 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel

¶41

Sri.P.G.Chikkanaragund for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Nandini B.Somapur for

¶42

respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4/State and learned counsel Sri.K.L.Patil for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an identical matter the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.107168/2025 in the case of Sri.Vitthal Gangappa Huggi and others Vs. The State of

¶44

Karnataka and others disposed of on 25.09.2025 has passed the following order;

¶45

“1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶46

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1424 WP No. 100588 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the period 15 years, in sub-rule (14) of rule 376 of Karnataka Civil Service rules 1958 as 10 years and 8 months (128 months) for recovery of lumpsum amount paid to the petitioner in monthly installment from pension payable to the petitioner and to extend all consequential benefits arising thereto, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶51

b. Issue any other order or direction, directing the respondents to refund the excess amount of communication of pension having already been recovered from the petitioner who has paid more than 10 years and 8 months as per the representation dated 28.08.2025 vide annexure-d and direct the respondent no.1 to 5 to pay full pension to the petitioner.

¶52

c. Issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶53

The respondents proposing to recover the commuted value of pension beyond 12 years, the petitioner submitted the representation on

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1424 WP No. 100588 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

28.08.2025 at Annexure-D. The said representation has still not been considered, but the respondents are proposing to recover the amount. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶58

Whenever any representation is submitted to any statutory authority or a Governmental authority it is required for the said authority to consider the same and pass necessary orders within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the same. Neither having been done, I pass the following;

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶61

ii. A mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.08.2025 submitted by the petitioner at AnnexureD within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶62

iii. Needless to say, until such representation is considered and order is passed, no recovery can be made from the petitioner.”

¶63

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1424 WP No. 100588 of 2026

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶66

appearing for the respondents/State does not dispute the said aspect. In light of the same, the petitioner being similarly placed, this Court pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶69

ii. A mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure-D) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶70

iii. It is made clear that until such representation being considered no recovery shall be made from the petitioner.

¶71

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶72

PJ/ Ct:VH

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri. Laxman Basappa Pattar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Laxman Basappa Pattar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Tejappa B Allolli S/O Bhiwappa T Allolli Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Prakash S/O Dinakar Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun S Sankannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka State Board of Auqaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Maktum Hussain S/O Rajesab Manvi Vs the Management of Nwkrtc