Sri M D Gopal Vs the Director (a and Hr) Kptcl. — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri M D Gopal Vs the Director (a and Hr) Kptcl. — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure-D) within one month from receipt of copy of the order, having regard to the mandate in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; no monetary relief granted at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3 should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure-D), which it had neither considered nor acted upon. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.03.2025 vide Annexure-D.

Ratio / Principle

While considering the representation, respondent No.3 shall consider the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334.

Key takeaways

The consideration of the representation shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.ratio¶40-41
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru (single judge, Ashok S. Kinagi, J.), by oral order dated 02.07.2026, disposed of Writ Petition No. 18102 of 2026 (S-RES) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a retired Junior Engineer (Ele), Davanagere Division, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 (Executive Engineer (Ele), TL and SS Division, KPTCL, Davanagere) to consider his representation dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure-D) requesting restoration of basic pay to Rs.58,020/-, payment of the difference in terminal benefits, and refund of Rs.70,757/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of retirement. On the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the representation would be considered and appropriate orders passed in accordance with law if reasonable time were granted, the Court disposed of the petition directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation within one month from receipt of copy of the order, while considering the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. Pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of accordingly. No substantive adjudication of the pay-restoration/refund claim was made.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33115 WP No. 18102 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 18102 OF 2026 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M.D.GOPAL, S/O. DODDACHAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELE), DAVANAGERE DIVISION, R/AT. SRI KALIKAMBA NILAYA, D.NO.566/C2, NITTUVALLI, LENIN NAGARA, 8^TH MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE)

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

AND:

THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR) KPTCL., INDHANA BHAVANA, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009.

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE), BESCOM, O AND M CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), TL AND SS DIVISION,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33115 WP No. 18102 of 2026

HC-KAR

KPTCL,

DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 17.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE - D, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESTORE THE BASIC PAY OF THE PETITIONER TO RS.58,020 AND TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE OF TERMINAL BENEFITS AND FURTHER DIRECT TO REFUND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.70,757/ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT TILL THE DATE OF REPAYMENT.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2025 vide Annexure-D, wherein the petitioner requested to restore

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33115 WP No. 18102 of 2026

HC-KAR

the basic pay to Rs.58,020/- and to pay the difference in terminal benefits, and to refund the entire amount of Rs.70,757/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of retirement till the date of repayment. It is contended that respondent No.3 has neither considered the representation nor passed any orders on the said representation. Hence, this writ petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits

that if a reasonable time is granted, respondent No.3 will consider the representation vide Annexure-D and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 17.03.2025 vide Annexure-D. While

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33115 WP No. 18102 of 2026

HC-KAR

considering the representation, the respondent No.3 shall consider the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White

Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, within one month from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

ii. Pending interlocutory application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

SKS