MOHAN RAM GOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter dtd. 15/4/2013 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent No.2-Panchayat, stating that withholding of pensionary benefits to the petitioner is contrary to the order dtd. 11/8/2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petitions No.9376-77 of 2010 (Annexure-C to the writ petition). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Gardener on daily-wage basis on 26/7/1984 by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District and thereafter, the services of the petitioner was absorbed as per Notification dtd. 1/8/1989 (Annexure-A). Subsequently, the petitioner was continued to work in Zilla Panchayat, Karwar as Peon. Upon attaining the of superannuation, petitioner retired from service on 21/2/2011. The petitioner was given all retrial benefits. However, in view of the discrepancy in the State relating to grant of pensionary benefits to the personnel who were absorbed in the Zilla Panchayat, Writ Petitions No.9376-77 of 2010 were filed by some of the similarly placed persons challenging the recovery of their pension by the respondent-State. This Court, by order dtd. 11/8/2011, disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondent-authorities to settle the pensionary benefits due to the petitioners therein and the said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in Writ Appeal No.81 of 2012 and connected appeal and the Division Bench, by its order dtd. 23/7/2013, dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the State and accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ petitions No.9376-77 of 2010 was confirmed. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench, the impugned letter dtd. 15/4/2013 issued by the respondent-Zilla Panchayat withholding pensioary benefits to the petitioner is contrary to law. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) Heard Sri Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State and Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

(3.) Sri Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petitions No.9376-77 of 2010, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.81 of 2012 and connected appeal, the impugned letter dtd. 15/4/2013 issued by the respondent-Zilla Panchayat, does not survive consideration. The learned counsel also referred to the absorption made insofar as similarly placed employees of the Zilla Panchayat.