C. NALINI D/O LATE D. SHELVARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, THE DIRECTOR OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE AND HOMEOPATHY AND THE KARNATAKA BOARD OF HOMEOPATHIC SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE BY THE REG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' group is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE State has not filed its statement of objections. The Respondent No. 3 is served and remains absent. Hence the petition is considered for final disposal.

(3.) IT is pointed out that the Karnataka Homoepathic Petitioners Act, 1961, provides for the establishment of a Homoepathic Registration Tribunal. The object and functions is to the effect that it registers Homoepathic Doctors under the State and issues certificates to that effect. The fees that is collected forms the income of the Tribunal Apart from this the Tribunal receives donations and other sums from the Government. The Petitioner was initially appointed on a temporary bask and with effect from 01.04.1987, the Petitioner was made a permanent employee of the Board and thereafter, had retired from service, as already slated. The Petitioner had submitted her papers seeking pension and other terminal benefits. The Government by its order dated 28.3.2006, withdrew its earlier Government order approving the grant of pensionary benefits. No reasons are assigned in withdrawing the same, except the possible suggestion by the President of the Board to the effect that the Act does not provide for grant of pensionary benefits to Its employees and that the State Government has passed the order withdrawing the approval The Petitioner thereafter made representations which were not considered, Therefore, the Petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 6212/2006 seeking to quash the Government order withdrawing the approval. The said writ petition was allowed, after hearing the Respondents and the matter was remitted, with a direction to consider the matter afresh. The direction was not complied with and the Petitioner initiated contempt proceedings. In the contempt proceedings the first Respondent filed an affidavit to state that it had taken a decision and that as regards the representation of the Petitioner, it had been communicated to the third Respondent, As per the order passed by the first Respondent, the third Respondent was directed to pay 30 months' salary last drawn, as a lumpsum payment, This was not in consonance with the pensionary and retirement benefits given to other employees, who were similarly placed. The Petitioner however, received the amount, namely, 30 months basic pay last drawn by her fey way of a cheque without prejudice to bar rights to claim pensionary aid other retirement benefits.