D. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O D. SANNEGOUDA ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT OF KARNATAKA, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REPTD. B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Government Advocate to accept notice for Respondents No. 1 to 4 and file memo of appearance in four weeks. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.

(2.) THE Petitioners are before this Court claiming that they are working in the Karnataka State Reserve Police. In addition to the other services rendered by them, it is contended that their services were utilised by inducting them in Special Task Force ('the STF' for short) which was constituted for the specific and sole purpose of capturing the forest brigand Veerappan in M.M. Hills in Chamarajanagar. The Petitioners contend that they were also the Serving Personnel among the 754 members of the STF, who were involved in the operation which ultimately resulted in killing of Veerappan on 18.10.2004. The ease of Petitioners is that the Respondents by their circulars which are produced along with the writ petition had announced rewards for the person who had served in the STF. In this regard, it is also the contention of the Petitioners that when the same had not been complied with by the Respondents, certain other members of the STF approached this Court by filing W.P. 19957/2009 seeking a direction for allotment of sites. The said petition was disposed of on 21.07.2009. The further proceedings relating to the same in the contempt matters is also referred to. The Petitioners further contend that the said issue had arisen for consideration before this Court and this Court after considering the same in the case of K. Ningaraju S/o Karinayaka and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka reptd. by Chief Secretary, The State of Karnataka reptd. by the Secretary, The Department of Urban Development and The Director General and Inspector General of Police State of Karnataka, ILR (2011) KAR 938 had issued directions with regard to the manner in which the circulars are to be implemented. It is also contended that they are similarly placed Police Personnel as that of the persons to whom benefits have been extended and therefore, the Petitioners have also made representations seeking benefit of the reward as per their representations as at Annexures -F1 to F33. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Respondents have neither considered the representations nor have rewarded the Petitioners. Therefore, appropriate directions are to be issued to the Respondents.

(3.) TAKING note of the above and considering the fact that the representations as at Annexures -F1 to F33 have been submitted only during the month of July 2011 by the Petitioners and even assuming that the. Petitioners have made representations earlier, the fact as to whether the Petitioners are similarly placed as that of the personnel to whom the benefits have been extended is a matter which would have to be looked into by the Respondents. Therefore, at this stage, no positive direction could be issued in the instant petitions to direct the Respondents to grant the reward to the Petitioners.