- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43090 WP No. 19922 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 19922 OF 2021 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: CHANDRAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA EX CLERK, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS TAPCMS LTD., SORABA R/O MALLAPURA SORABA TALUK - 577 429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 001 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES SAGARA SUB DIVISION SAGARA - 577 401 4. TALUK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD, SORABA - 577 429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43090 WP No. 19922 of 2021 BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI .S., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2020 PASSED BY THE R3 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND DIRECT THE R3 AND 4 TO IMPLEMENT AND COMPLY WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND CONFIRMED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 22.06.2020 passed by respondent No.3 produced as per Annexure-M and direct respondents No.3 and 4 to implement and comply with the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the KAT'), Bengaluru, which was confirmed by this Court. 2. Heard Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt Chandini S, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri. Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43090 WP No. 19922 of 2021 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the ex-employee of respondent No.4-Society. He was appointed in the year 1974. However, on 12.11.1981, he was kept under suspension. After holding an enquiry, as per order dated 10.10.1986, he was dismissed from service with effect from the date of his suspension. 4. The petitioner had challenged the order of suspension before the Registrar of Societies and the order dismissing the petitioner from service is also challenged. The Departmental Arbitrator and Sale Officer passed the order as per Annexure-B. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred two appeals and respondent No.4 also preferred an appeal before the KAT. The KAT has passed the common order as per Annexure-C on 31.01.2001. There was a specific direction to respondent No.4 herein to pay subsistence allowance as per the provisions of bye-laws and if there were no provisions under the bye-laws or under the service rules, then to pay the entire pay and allowance to the petitioner from the date of his suspension. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43090 WP No. 19922 of 2021 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though respondent No.4 challenged the said order before this Court by filing 3 separate writ petitions, the same came to be dismissed confirming Annexure-C, as per order dated 23.08.2004 produced as per Annexure-D. 6. It is contended that, even after dismissal of the writ petition, respondent No.4 has not quantified the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies to fix the subsistence allowance as per the order of KAT. But no relief was granted in favour of the petitioner. As per Annexure- G, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies is directed to pay the allowance. Inspite of that, no amount was quantified or paid. 7. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted an application to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking necessary directions. Respondent No.4 filed the objections as per Annexure-L, contending that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation. Pursuant to the same, the order as per Annexure-M came to be passed by the Assistant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43090 WP No. 19922 of 2021 Registrar of Cooperative Societies-respondent No.3, rejecting the claim and directing the petitioner to approach competent authority for redressal of his grievance, in accordance with law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 had not made it clear as to who is the competent authority and why respondent No.3 could not redress the grievance of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, he prays for quashing the order dated 22.06.2020 and to direct respondents No.3 and 4 to implement and comply with the order of the KAT, produced as per Annexure-C. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 fairly concedes that respondent No.4 has not quantified the subsistence allowance for which the petitioner is entitled, pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2001 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru produced as per Annexure-C. However, states that the execution petition is filed before respondent No.3 which is still pending consideration. Accordingly, he prays for passing of appropriate orders. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43090 WP No. 19922 of 2021 10. In view of these contentions urged by learned counsel for parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 11. The facts of the case as per the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not in dispute. The petitioner was kept under suspension since 12.11.1981. Subsequently, he was dismissed from the service with effect from the date of suspension. The claim made by the petitioner for subsistence allowance for the period which he is entitled was considered by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by passing the order as per Annexure-C on 31.01.2001, and the appeal by the Society was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed-in-part. Respondent No.4 herein has specifically directed to pay the subsistence allowance under the provisions of relevant service Rules or under the provisions of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43090 WP No. 19922 of 2021 bye-laws to the employee. It is also made clear that if there are no provisions either under the bye-laws or under the service Rules, then the entire pay and allowance shall be paid to the employee from the date of suspension. Even thereafter, admittedly, respondent No.4 has not quantified the amount that is due to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that Annexure- C has attained finality after dismissal of the writ petitions filed by respondent No.4. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 claiming for grant of subsistence allowance. In the said proceedings, the impugned order as per Annexure-M came to be passed by holding that the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation. 12. When respondent No.4 has not quantified the subsistence allowance for which the petitioner is entitled and when the proceedings before various authorities i.e., Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and this Court were pending for several years, it cannot be held that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation. Therefore, Annexure-M passed by respondent No.3 is liable to be quashed and respondent No.3 is to be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43090 WP No. 19922 of 2021 accordance with law in a time bound manner. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed; ii) The impugned order dated 22.06.2020 at Annexure-M passed by respondent No.3 is set aside; iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, at the earliest, atleast within four months from today; iv) The petitioner shall file a memo of calculation before respondent No.3, upon which, a reasoned order is to be passed; v) Both the parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.3 on 12.11.2025. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV - CT:VS - List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4