- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20662 WP No. 17722 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.17722 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI R. SREENIVASA AGED 54 YEARS S/O. LATE RAMAIAH RESIDING AT NO.79, 11TH CROSS NAVILU ROAD, A & B BLOCK KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE-570 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.P. GANGESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J.L.B ROAD MYSORE-570 009. 2. THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B ROAD MYSORE-570 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DATED 25.01.2014 AT ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN MUDA/STAFF(1)/PR31/2008-2009 IS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME AND ETC. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20662 WP No. 17722 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 25.01.2014 vide Annexure-G, passed by the respondent, whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 02.01.2014 has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent – Mysuru Urban Development Authority. On 04.10.1999, the petitioner filed an application seeking voluntary retirement from service. On 31.01.2000, the respondent permitted the petitioner to voluntarily retire from service. Thereafter, on 06.03.2000, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting the respondent to permit him to withdraw the voluntary retirement application. Accordingly, on 12.04.2000, the respondent permitted the petitioner to withdraw the voluntary retirement application - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20662 WP No. 17722 of 2014 and he was again re-instated and continued in service. When the matter stood thus, the respondent, by order dated 26.10.2002 withdrawn the order permitting the petitioner to withdraw his voluntary retirement application. Against that order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.40756/2002. By virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner was continued in service. This Court by order, dated 01.04.2008 allowed the writ petition and set aside the withdrawal order dated 26.10.2002 and remitted the matter to the respondent for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. On remand from this Court, the respondent passed an order dated 05.12.2008 confirming the earlier order permitting the petitioner to retire from service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16405/2008. This Court, by order dated 06.07.2012, allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2008 and remitting the matter back to the respondent to consider the case of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20662 WP No. 17722 of 2014 petitioner as a special case and exercise the discretion specified under Rule 7 of KCSRs. Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order vide Annexure-G on 25.01.2014. In the meantime, the petitioner has attained the superannuation. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-G, he filed this writ petition. 3. The respondents filed the statement of objections. The relevant portion is extracted below: “8. It is submitted that during the pendency of the W.P.No.16405/2008 disposed of on 06.07.2012, the petitioner on 24.06.2011 gave representation that he would withdraw the W.P.No.16405/2008 and he may be permitted to retire voluntarily as per ANNEXURE-R9. Again, the petitioner on 13.12.2011 gave a representation once again seeking permission to retire him voluntarily on the ground of ill-health as per ANNEXURE – R10 and therefore issued an endorsement dated 04.07.2011 informing the petitioner that as stated by him, if the said writ petition filed by the petitioner is withdrawn and if - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20662 WP No. 17722 of 2014 the said information is provided to this respondent, the permission sought for by the petitioner in his representation dated 24.06.2011 produced at ANNEXURE – R11 would be considered immediately. Though this being the state of affairs and the conduct of the petitioner being a fickle minded has no mind to work and since the petitioner was absenting himself from duty on one pretext or the other and was in the habit of giving representation for seeking voluntary retirement and upon passing the order by this respondent, the petitioner was in the habit of filing the representation seeking withdrawal of the permission sought for by him and also as in the habit of filing application one after the other as stated supra and during the pendency of the writ petition filed by him also the petitioner has made similar representation as was made by him in the year 2000, this respondent was unable to take work from the petitioner which is evident from his own letters addressed to this respondent referred to supra who voluntarily submitted the representation that though leave was not sanctioned he remained absent to the duty and also further stated that he is reporting to duty on 01.03.2012 at 10.00 A.M. and further submitted a representation to this respondent Authority dated Nil received by this respondent on 31.03.2012 who voluntarily stated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20662 WP No. 17722 of 2014 that he did not attend to duty in the month of February and March and requested to pay the salary in respect of the period which he has attended to duty. Before giving the said representation, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 10.02.2012 about his misbehaviour with the Officers of this respondent which was admitted by the petitioner in his reply dated 23.02.2012 produced as ANNEXURES – R12 & R13. Considering the request letter dated 11.05.2012 ANNEXURE – R14 of the petitioner, on 31.07.2003 as per ANNEXURE – R15 this respondent was pleased to issue the Official Memorandum permitted the petitioner to retire as required under Rule 285B of the KCSR Rules making it applicable from 31.07.2013 permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily as could be seen from the document produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition and the petitioner accordingly relieved as per the said order on the same day.” 4. The specific contention of the respondents is that, from the date of accepting his voluntary retirement application, he has not worked. Considering on humanitarian grounds, all the retirement benefits have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20662 WP No. 17722 of 2014 been granted. In respect of his request for grant of qualifying service, the same has been rejected on the ground that he has not worked for the period. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is justified in issuing the impugned order vide Annexure-G. 5. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28