IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.40492-40493/2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VANISHREE AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WIFE OF LATE SRI D.RAVICHANDRAN RESIDING AT NO.16, SOMANATHA MUDALIAR STREET VANNARPET, VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 047 2. SRI R.DINESH, AGED 27 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI D.RAVICHANDRAN RESIDING AT NO.16, SOMANATHA MUDALIAR STREET VANNARPET, VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 047 …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI G.R.MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR PRINTING STATIONARY AND PUBLICATIONS 8TH MILE, R.V.COLLEGE POST KENCHENAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 059 …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAMESH JOIS M.V., AGA) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 07.08.2019 (ANNEXURE-J).
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R One D.Ravichandran, who was working as Deputy Director (Tech) in the Department of Printing Stationary and Publications, Government of Karnataka, died on 05.03.2013. He had taken voluntary retirement as per the proceedings dated 15.01.2013. Petitioners viz., wife and son of the deceased D.Ravichandran submitted a representation for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds. The said representation has been rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that the deceased had taken voluntary retirement. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.3973/2014 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to consider the petitioners’ case on compassionate grounds. The Tribunal, by order dated 05.01.2018, has held that when the deceased Government servant had submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement on the ground that he was suffering from throat cancer, in all fairness, the authorities should have got him examined after referring his case to medical board. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and pass suitable orders within three months thereof.
2. Shri G.R.Mohan, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted necessary papers to the respondents as per Annexure-H. However, the respondents have not taken any action till date. Accordingly, he prays for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 07.08.2019.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners had approached the Tribunal and obtained an order for consideration of their representation. The grievance of the petitioners is that their case is not considered by the respondents. If that be so, these petitions seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is not maintainable. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration; it stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.