SHRI ASHOK S/O APPASAB TEERTH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/107854/2024 · 2025-11-26
M Nagaprasanna
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61731 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61731 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16536 WP No. 107854 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107854 OF 2024 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ASHOK S/O. APPASAB TEERTH, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED PATTAN PANCHATAT R/O GADENNAVAR GALLI, SHEDBAL-591315 TQ. KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH b. KANAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND, PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, MINICIPAL CORPORATION, VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI-590001 DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT BELAGAVI BELAGAVI-590001 DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16536 WP No. 107854 of 2024
5. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SHEDBHAL TOWN PANCHAYAT, SHEDBAL-591315 TQ. KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT SHEDBHAL-591315 TQ. KAGAWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED; R6-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
a. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.11.2024 BEARING NO.SL.NO./PAPASHE/SHEBANDI/2023-24 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT (THE TOWN PANCHAYAT SHEDBHAL) VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ALLOW THE PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. b. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.6 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 14.08.2024 SUBMITTED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT/TOWN PANCHAYAT TO PAY FUTURE PENSIONS AND GRATUITY AMOUNT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF CLERK AND DATA ENTRY OPERATOR IN GRAM PANCHAYAT AS WITH ALL BENEFITS AT VIE ANNEXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16536 WP No. 107854 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. To issue writ in the nature of certiorari and set aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 bearing No.sl.no./PAPASHE/SHEBANDI/2023-24 passed by the 6th respondent (the Town panchayat shedbhal) vide ANNEXURE-G and allow the petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
b. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.6 to consider representation dated 14.08.2024 submitted to the 6th Respondent/Town Panchayat to pay future pensions and gratuity amount to the Petitioner for the post of clerk and data entry operator in Gram Panchayat as with all benefits at vie Annexure-D in the interest of justice. c. Pass such order which this Hon’ble court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is appointed as a Clerk in the Gram Panchayat on 30.04.1996. The Zilla Panchayat later is said to have approved the appointment of the petitioner as Clerk / Data Entry Operator. The petitioner then after working about 30 years, retires on attaining the age of superannuation from Town Panchayat as the Gram Panchayat had then been upgraded as Town Panchayat. The petitioner then submits a representation to
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16536 WP No. 107854 of 2024
the respondent Nos.2 to 5 for sanction of pension and gratuity that the petitioner was at all times entitled to. The communications between the authorities galore finally comes the impugned endorsement rejecting the pension and gratuity of the petitioner for the services that he has rendered for close to 25 years then. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to both pension and gratuity as is granted to every other similarly situated person. He would submit that a direction be issued to the respondent to grant gratuity and pension, as the case would be to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel Sri. Shivaraj Hiremath appearing for the respondent No.4 would seek to refute the submissions but is not in a position to dispute the fact that the petitioner has in fact rendered 30 years of continuous service and would become entitled to some amount of terminal benefits, as this Court would deem fit. 5. The learned AGA also would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. - 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16536 WP No. 107854 of 2024
6.
There is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.6 though served long ago. 7. In that light, the submissions of the aforesaid counsel is considered. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates and link in the chain of events are not in dispute. The issue is whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of gratuity and pension. It is trite law that gratuity by any means cannot be withheld by the employer if the employee has completed minimum or maximum period of service. In the case at hand, the petitioner has completed 30 years of service and is entitled to gratuity to be paid without any ado. The other issue is with regard to grant of pension. Since the petitioner was regularly appointed in the Gram Panchayath and which was later upgraded to Town Panchayath, the petitioner has rendered continuous service. Therefore, insofar as the pension is concerned, the respondents should consider the representations of the petitioner and grant pension if the petitioner would be eligible in terms of the rules. - 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16536 WP No. 107854 of 2024
9. With the aforesaid observation, directing the respondent to pay gratuity without looking any further delay, and the respondent No.6 shall consider the case of the petitioner for pension in accordance with law at any rate within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 10. The petition stands disposed. As a matter of form, the impugned endorsement stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
Rsh / CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 125