IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.10648/2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. P.V. CHETTY S/O LATE P.VEERASWAMY CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR PHARMACIST, COMPOSITE HOSPITAL, CRPF, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (POLICE FINANCE WING), NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, C.G.O, COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, SOUTHERN SECTOR, JUBLIEE HILLS, HYDERBAD-500 001.
4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, GROUP CENTRE, AVADI, CHENNAI-600 054.
5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (MEDICAL), CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, COMPOSITE HOSPITAL, CRPF, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S.ANANSUYA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 9.1.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, PASSED BY THE R-4 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
O R D E R The petitioner was working as pharmacist with the respondent-Central Reserve Police Force. He was posted at Rourkela, Orissa from 01.03.2009 to 31.10.2011. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondents were required to pay allowance for risk/hardship to all those employees who were posted in the Naxal areas. The petitioner was accordingly paid a sum of Rs.1,31,705/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Five Only). However, by issuing the impugned order dated 09.01.2015, the allowance of Rs.1,31,705/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Five Only) which was granted to the petitioner was sought to be recovered by the respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court.
2. Learned counsel representing the respondents, brings to the notice of this Court a copy of the order dated 17.09.2018, issued by the competent authority. It has been ordered that the order of recovery is recalled and the respondent shall not recover the said amount, which was earlier paid to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the grievance of the petitioner is redressed and the matter does not survive for consideration.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2018 and further admits that the respondent have indeed passed the order dated 17.09.2018, which has enured to the benefit of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off as nothing further survive for consideration.
5. In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
sd/- JUDGE DS/KLV