Dismissed¶7

Sri Vijaykumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2026WP/17697/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disability allowances claim by retired KSRTC (Shivamogga Division) employee; claim raised in 2022, about four years after 2019 superannuation; delay and laches bar service-benefit claims; financial repercussions on Corporation weighed before monetary benefits; endorsement No.KaRaSaa/ShiVi/Sibbandi/C2/5000/2021-22 dated 25.02.2022 upheld; writ of certiorari refused; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ petition (S-KSRTC) rejected/dismissed; neutral citation NC: 2026:KHC:32913.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner slept over his claim and raised it belatedly; the delay and laches are apparent, barring the claim for disability allowances. ¶6

Sri Vijaykumar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32913 WP No. 17697 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 17697 OF 2023 (S-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VIJAYKUMAR, S/O. LATE VENKATESH RAO S., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SKANDA, 2nd PHASE, 3rd CROSS, NARSHIMA EXTENSION, NEAR PARASHWANTHA PARK, VINOBANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RITHISH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:32913 WP No. 17697 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.Rithish D.Naik, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.P.Yoganna, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for respondent No.2 appeared in person.

¶24

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶25

(i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other direction or any other appropriate order to quash the impugned endorsement dated 25.02.2022 bearing No.KaRaSaa/ShiVi/Sibbandi/C2/5000/2021-22 passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure - A as they are arbitrary exercise of power.

¶26

(ii) Issue any other order or direction or any appropriate writ deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the interest of justice.

¶27

Counsel for the respective parties presented several

¶28

contentions.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:32913 WP No. 17697 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that

¶33

the petitioner had rendered service in the Corporation for more than two decades. It was submitted that the petitioner suffered disability on account of an accident during employment and, therefore, he is entitled to the allowances sought in the writ petition. Counsel contended that the impugned endorsement rejecting his claim is liable to be quashed.

¶34

In reply, the counsel for the Corporation submitted that though the petitioner had served the Corporation, on account of disability, he was assigned light duty from 2016 to 2019. He attained the age of superannuation in 2019. However, till 2022, he did not make any request for the grant of disability allowances. It was only in 2022 that such a request was made. The Corporation rejected the claim. It was submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Heard the rival contentions and perused the records with utmost care.

¶36

It is undisputed that the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation and had served for more than 20 years. It is also undisputed that due to disability, he was

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:32913 WP No. 17697 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

assigned light duty from 2016 until his superannuation in 2019.

¶41

The petitioner, however, remained silent for nearly four years and only in 2022 sought disability allowances. The Corporation rejected the request. In my considered view, the rejection is just and proper. During the tenure of his service, the petitioner did not make any representation seeking disability allowances. He slept over the matter and raised the claim belatedly. The delay and laches are apparent. The financial repercussions upon the Corporation must also be kept in view before awarding any monetary benefits. The petitioner has not been diligent in prosecuting his claim. Accordingly, the issuance of the endorsement cannot be faulted.

¶42

The writ petition is devoid of merit and stands

¶43

rejected .

¶44

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶45

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri Vijaykumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijaykumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs Smt G Shashikala

M/S Southern Auto Products Vs Bengaluru Karmika Sangha

Smt Mary Philomena @ Amalamma Vs Union Bank of India

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri Syed Asadulla

Sri. D Venkatesha Vs the Chief Accounts Officer and Financial Advisor

M/S Sreedevi Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Canara Bank Head Office