IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.15701 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI H.N. KRISHNA SHETTY S/O. LATE NINGA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RTD. HEADMASTER GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL R/AT. ALDUR HOSAHALLI VILLAGE ALDUR POST, PIN.577 111 CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS OFFICE OF BEO, MUDIGERE TOWN MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS OFFICE OF THE DDPI ZILLA PANCHAYAT BUILDING JYOTHINAGAR POST CHIKKAMAGALURU 3. KUM.PANCHAMI @ PALLAVI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BHYRESWARA NILAYA ANCHELINGANNA BEEDHI GOPALKRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD BASAVANAHALLI EXTENSION CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.H.R.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI D.C.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2016 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.221/2016 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S.No.221/2016 a decree for settling the terminal benefits is knocking at the doors of writ Court for assailing the order dated 27.02.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-H, whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru has rejected his application for a direction to the respondents to deposit the GPF amount and other money in the Court below. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through the learned Government Pleader, and other counsel oppose the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the limited reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:
a) The suit is for settlement of terminal benefit; the petitioners request for a direction to the respondents to deposit the money which he is otherwise entitled to on retirement form service is rejected on the ground that some amount has already been disbursed to respondent No.3 herein; whether such disbursal could have been made in favour of respondent No.3 is doubtful inasmuch as a living person does not leave a legal representative; since already there is retired employee who happens to be plaintiff subject request could not have been rejected on the ground stated in the impugned order;
b) the reasoning of the Courts below that the petitioner ought to have sought for a direction to respondent No.3 herein for depositing the amount received by her again is fault some, in the absence of entitlement of respondent No.3 to receive the terminal benefit being established. Be that as it may;
c) the justice of the case warrants that the impugned order be let uninterfered subject to the rider that if and when the petitioner succeeds in the suit, he shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed off.
This order shall not come in the way of official respondent recovering the amount from respondent No.3 if the grounds do exist therefor.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY