- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16051 WP No. 262 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.262 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI ARVIND S RAJAMANYA S/O LATE S M RAJAMANYA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/A NO.121, OLD NO.280-B, 38TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 082. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO STATE COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (MSME AND MINES) NO.135, FIRST FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD K H D C L (GOVT OF KARNATAKA) HEAD OFFICE AT: PRIYADARSHINI NEKAARA BHAVANA, 1ST FLOOR, OPPOSITE K H PATIL COLLEGE WEAVERS COLONY VIDYANAGAR HUBLI – 580 031. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R-1; SRI. D. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE ARREARS OF VRS RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16051 WP No. 262 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent to pay the arrears of VRS retirement benefits to the petitioner herein as per Annexure-‘A’ dated 02.11.2023. ii) Call for records with the respondents. iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case including payment of interest, just compensation for inordinate delay and costs in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the material on record in order to contend that the repeated representations submitted by the petitioner for grant of retirement benefits / VRS benefits has not been considered by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16051 WP No. 262 of 2024 respondents, hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. It is submitted that the Criminal Proceedings in PCR No.3263/2007 filed by respondent No.2 was withdrawn subsequently and as such, there is no impediment for the respondents to consider the claim for grant of VRS benefit in favour of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as long back as on 24.06.2013 itself, respondent No.2 had issued an endorsement declining / refusing to grant VRS benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he had been dismissed from service on 07.05.2005 and the Writ Petition in W.P.No.1449/2007 filed by the petitioner having voluntarily withdrawn by the petitioner, thereby accepting the dismissal order, the question of granting VRS benefits in favour of the petitioner does not arise and consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. 6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that as long back as on 24.06.2013 itself, the request for grant of VRS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16051 WP No. 262 of 2024 benefits in favour of the petitioner was expressly denied / refused by respondent No.2 vide endorsement at Annexure – L dated 24.06.2013, which reads as under: REGD POST/ACK DUE KHDC SEC LEGAL W.P. 1449:2007:2013-14 156 Date: 24-06-2013 ENDORSMENT Sub: Regarding -dismissal of Sri Aravind is Rajamanya Ref: Sri. Aravind S. Rajamanya representation dt: 07.05.2013 This reference to the representation of Sri. Aravind S. Rajamanya, Ex-Employee of the Corporation. The representation is examined and it is found that Sri. Aravind S Rajamanya was dismissed from the services of the Corporation through an Office Order No.KHDC:ADM:2005-06:528 dated May 7, 2005. As Against the order of dismissal, Sri. Arvind S Rajamanya, filed a Writ Petition No.1449/2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. When the case was in the High Court, Sri Aravind S Rajamanya filed a Memo praying for permission before the Hon'ble High Court to withdraw the Writ Petition No.1449/2007 filed by him. Accordingly the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has taken the Memo filed by him on record and the Writ Petition No.1449/2007 was dismissed as Withdrawn. In this regard, it is informed that when Sri Aravind S Rajamanya challenged the orders of dismissal through Writ Petition No.1449/2007, if he is having any grievance towards his dismissal, he should have continued the Writ Petition. Instead in the middle of the case, he has voluntarily withdrawn the Writ Petition which amounts to understand that he has accepted the dismissal order made by the Corporation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16051 WP No. 262 of 2024 When the employee is dismissed from the services of the Corporation, there is no scope to give him Voluntary Retirement benefits. No further correspondence is entertained in this regard. For K.H.D.C LIMITED, MANAGING DIRECTOR. 7. Under these circumstances, the question of directing the respondent No.2 to once more / yet again consider the request of the petitioner for grant of VRS benefits would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Insofar as reliance placed by petitioner that respondent No.2 had withdrawn PCR No.3263/2007 is concerned, in the absence of any reference to the said criminal proceedings in the aforesaid endorsement relied upon by the petitioner, whereby respondent No.2 has declined / refused to grant VRS benefits on the ground that the petitioner had been dismissed from service and his challenge to the order of dismissal in W.P.No.1449/2007 was withdrawn by him, respondent No.2 is clearly justified in declining to grant VRS benefits in favour of the petitioner, who was a dismissed employee and had not taken voluntary retirement and consequently, the said contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16051 WP No. 262 of 2024 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25