Disposed¶43

Ramesh Rao v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/1052/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Articles 226/227; writ of mandamus; Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation; regularisation-related consequential financial/retirement benefits; representations dated 13.11.2014 and 26.10.2018 (Annexures K, L) left unconsidered; disposal with direction to consider representations and pass orders in accordance with law within one month; I.A.No.1/2024 disposed; related to earlier W.P.Nos.2997-3003/2003 (S-RES) direction dated 24.03.2003; coram Ashok S. Kinagi, J.; HC-KAR, decided 08.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the representations dated 13.11.2014 and 26.10.2018 (Annexures K and L) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶43

Ramesh Rao Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent ought to be directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 13.11.2014 and 26.10.2018 (Annexures K and L) requesting payment of consequential financial/retirement benefits in terms of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.2997-3003 of 2003 dated 24.03.2003.

¶33

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the set of representations dated 13.11.2014 and 26.10.2018 (Annexures K and L respectively) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The consideration of the representations and passing of appropriate orders is to be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶42

Key takeaways

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Ashok S. Kinagi, J.) disposed of W.P. No. 1052 of 2023 (S-RES) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by four petitioners seeking payment of consequential financial/retirement benefits in terms of the Court's direction dated 24.03.2003 in W.P.Nos.2997-3003/2003 (S-RES) (Annexure-B). Proceeding on the respondent's (Managing Director, Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation) submission through learned counsel that, if reasonable time were granted, the representations would be considered and appropriate orders passed in accordance with law, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent to consider the joint representations dated 13.11.2014 and 26.10.2018 (Annexures K and L) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month from receipt of a copy of the order. I.A.No.1/2024 was disposed of as not surviving. No adjudication on the merits of the benefits claim was made.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34839 WP No. 1052 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 1052 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAMESH RAO, S/O BHEEMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 'SANTHRUPTI NILAYA', A BLOCK, VIDYANAGARA, NEAR CITY FAMILY CLUB, HARIHARA TOWN - 577 601. DAVANGERE DISTRICT.

¶11

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

¶12

ASHWATHNARAYAN G, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.912, 1^ST CROSS, WEST CHORD ROAD, INDRANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶13

UMAMAHESH N, S/O LATE NANJUNDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.135, NEAR BASAVANNA TEMPLE, GANIGARA PALYA, THALAGHATTAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 062.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:34839 WP No. 1052 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

4. THIPPESWAMY R,

¶18

S/O LATE RANGADASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT VEERABOMMANAHALLI, YADALADAKU POST, HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, 'BEEJA BHAVANA', 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, BALLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI.SHISHIRA AMARNATH., ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REGULARISE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO.2997-3003/2003 (S-RES) DATED 24.03.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE - B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND TO PAY ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL FINANCIAL / RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS BY CONSIDERING THEIR JOINT REPRESENTATIONS DATED 13.11.2014 AND 26.10.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND L TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:34839 WP No. 1052 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶30

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider their representations dated 13.11.2014 and 26.10.2018 vide Annexures K and L, wherein the petitioners have requested to pay all the consequential financial/retirement benefits to them in terms of the direction issued by this court in W.P.No.2997-3003 of 2003 dated 24.03.2003 vide Annexure-B. The petitioners have submitted representations, but the respondent has not considered them nor passed any orders on the said representations. Hence, this writ petition.

¶34

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶35

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that if a reasonable time is granted, the respondent will

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34839 WP No. 1052 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

consider the representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶39

4. In view of the submission made by the learned

¶40

counsel for the respondent, I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the set of representations dated 13.11.2014 and 26.10.2018 vide Annexures K and L respectively, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶43

ii. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration, and accordingly disposed of.

¶44

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶45

SKS

Ramesh Rao v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Rao v. the Managing Director

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

Smt Y Gowramma Vs the Secretary

Smt. Manjula Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Lakshmidevamma Vs Nagamani @ Nagarathna

Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Vs Union of India

H P Prakash Vs Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka

Sri Naveena H K Vs the Registrar General