IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR WRIT PETITION No.44568/2017 (S - RES) BETWEEN:
T.N.BASAVARAJ, S/O NANJAPPA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/A THIMMANAHALLI, NERALIGE POST, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (TECHNICAL), M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. AL-KAHTEEB POLYTECHNIC, RMY 2ND STAGE, BHOOPASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 094.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHA T.H., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. M.V.VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE – D, DATED 15.05.2017 AND DIRECT THE RELEASE OF THE ARREARS OF SALARY AT THE RATE OF RS.13,500/- PER MONTH FROM MARCH, 2001 TO FEBRUARY 2004.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for R-2 and learned High Court Govt.Pleader for R-1.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the son of the petitioner = Ravish had been appointed as a Lecturer in the 2nd respondent – polytechnic on 1.1.2000. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent – college was brought under ‘grant-in –aid’ vide Government order dated 3.3.2001. During the said period, the petitioner’s son was working as lecturer of physics discipline. By Government order dated 5.2.2004, the post held by the son of the petitioner was brought under grant in aid and he was held entitled to be paid a salary of Rs.13,500/-
p.m. Thereafter, the son of the petitioner passed away on 20.7.2005. The salary at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per month from February 2004 to July, 2004 have been paid. But however, the salary that ought to have been paid to him from 3.3.2001 to February 2004 is yet to be paid. In view of the said fact, the petitioner having brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, he has given representation 15.5.2017. But the second respondent has not taken any action. Therefore, this petition is filed by the petitioner urging various grounds seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to direct the release of the arrears of the salary at the rate of Rs.13,500/- p.m. from March 2001 to February 2004.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced several documents ie., Annexure A the Government order dated 5.2.2004 and the death certificate of Ravish at Annexure B who is none other than the son of the petitioner. The Annexure D is the representation of the petitioner dated 15.5.2017. Keeping in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for first respondent, I am of the view that the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.5.2017 is requires to be considered by the second respondent in accordance with law since the second respondent has not taken any action to consider the same. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the representation vide Annexure D in accordance with law within outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE nm