Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37592 (KAR)

SRI. K SHIVLINGAPPA v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WP/105560/2018 · 2025-12-01

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16875 WP No. 105560 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105560 OF 2018 (S-R) BETWEEN: SRI. K. SHIVLINGAPPA S/O K MALLAPPA, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. RTD LIBRARIAN R/O RAMPUR, TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DISTRICT CENTRAL LIBRARYY BALLARI. 2. THE CHIEF LIBRARIAN DISTRICT CENTRAL LIBRARY BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE: D AND E. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16875 WP No. 105560 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the representations dated 21.08.2018 vide Annexure: D And E. b. To grant such other relief/s as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petition with costs in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Smt. Girija S. Hiremath appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is said to have been appointed as a Supervisor in the Grantha Vivarna Kendra Rampur in the year 1988. The petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2018. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner worked continuously from 1988 and retired after 30 years. The terminal benefits of the petitioner have not been - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16875 WP No. 105560 of 2018 settled even as on date though representation to settle the terminal benefits is submitted long back. 5. The learned HCGP would take this Court through the elaborate statement of objection so filed and the orders passed by the Co-ordinate benches of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the objection so filed does not touch upon the right of the petitioner, but only on the direction issued by the Co-ordinate benches for submission of a representation. 7. In the light of the said circumstance and the petitioner having submitted a representation to the respondents way back on 21.08.2018 seeking to settle the terminal benefits of 30 years of service, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law at any rate within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not already passed. If the representation has already merited - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16875 WP No. 105560 of 2018 consideration, it would be open to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as available in law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Kmv CT:ANB