IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.19427/2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
Dr. Ranganathan T., S/o. Thimmaiah .A, Aged about 54 years, Residing at No.35, 3rd Cross Road, M.H.R. Layout, (Behind Kirloskar Layout) Sidedahalli, Hesaraghatta Main Road, Bengaluru 560 090. …Petitioner (By Sri. Omkaresha, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Medical Education, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru -560 001.
2. The Director, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Dr. M.H. Marigowda Road, Bengaluru -560 029.
3. The Director, Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences, Mandya – 571401. …Respondents (By Sri. Sreedhar N. Hegde, HCGP for R-1; Sri. Aravind V. Chavan & Sri. M.V. Sheshachala, Advocates for R-2; Sri. R.S. Ravi, Advocate for R3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to act in accordance with the representations Annexure-S dated 03.12.2007 and Annexure–X to X6 dated 02.12.2011, 07.02.2012, 07.09.2012, 14.08.2013, 27.08.2013, 05.09.2013 and 20.02.2014 respectively and etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R State counsel accepts notice for respondents.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
a. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with the representations ANNEXURE ‘S’ dated 03.12.2007 and Annexures –‘X’ to ‘X6’ 02.12.2011, 07.02.2012, 07.09.2012, 14.08.2013, 27.08.2013, 05.09.2013, 20.02.2014 respectively.
b. Direct the respondents to grant the AICTE pay scale to the petitioner from 21.10.2009, vide Anneuxre V and other NPA and PG Allowance and to protect and fix previous Basic pay in AICTE pay scale of petitioner.
c. Pass any other relief/reliefs, orders, directions, writ as deemed fit to grant, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 have not taken decision whether petitioner is entitled to the service benefits as claimed in his representations. Whenever an application/representation is submitted to an Authority, it is a bound duty to take a decision and communicate whether such applicant is entitled to the relief sought for or not.
4. In the present case, both respondents No.1 and 2 have slept over the matter in not taking any decision. Therefore, both the respondents are hereby directed to take decision and pass a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
With the above observations, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK/MBM