IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated: This the 16th day of November 2010____
BEFORE ' "
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE v.JAGANN,{x*rH;éJxIj " %
W.P.NoS.33766 - 768/20}.O..(»S~f?ESf'A»:: E
BETWEEN:
1. PUTTE GOWDA, _
S/0 LATE NENGE GOWZDE-E
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS)"
R/AT DASARAKQPPALU .V1LL_AGE,
NEAR SPACE QUARTE_RS,_ .__ ,
HASSAN DISTRICT; if j. E '
[SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT cI;.A1M.jE1_)}
2. DASAPPA'$IfEETfY,g
S /Q
AGED A'BoU';r'0S' YEARS,
R/AT L,AKSHM:»Sv'EN'i{ATESHwARA GRENDERS,
M-YLARA --LIN(}ADEVARA BEEDI, KOTE,
CHANIQARAYAPATNA,
_ I-IASSAN" DISTR1',C'I";°
3.-T_: 1';_M:\I13.NJE CO'€v*'DA,
, 3 S/.()- NANJE GOWDA
~ _ A-C}ED"ABOUT 67 YEARS,
- ._ . R/AT 1.AjLm1A KRUPA,
" GAYATE {R1 BADAVANE,
RAGHAVENDRA SAW MILL ROAD,
~.CI*},ANNARAYAPATNA,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
PETETEONERS
"gray SMT B M JAYALAKSHME, ADV. FOR
' V. ._..SREE RANGA ASSOCIATES.)
[NJ
1. THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
COMMON CADRE COMMITTEE FOR
PREMARY CO--OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE _
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS IN 0' E A'
ALURVENKATA RAO ROAD, _ -. _ -
CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560 0.IS:~.._ V
2. REGISTRAR OF CO--OPERATIVE"S£§CiET1E:S
IN KARNATAKA, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE560 001; I 3_
" ;----.._RESPO'NDENTS
(By Sri G R PRAKASH; ;€§DV..IRFORVI.}§1VV§»"
SR1 JAGADEESH MUNDARGI, G..A;~-.POR~.R_2.)
THESE 'PI§;,Ié:D PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT f;"HE.;NATUREif.'OP MANDAMUS TO THE
FIRST RES'PON_D'ENT« CALCULATE, RELEASE AND
PAY TIIE 'DO THE PETITIONERS AS
PER OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
TO{;ETHER INTEREST THEREON FROM 1ST
'V AUCVEUST ..I999,miST SEPTEMBER 2000 & 1ST
=I)T_I::CENI;BERVT_2001 TILL THE DATE OF' PAYMENT.
H THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
.. PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners–«._and
learned Government Advocate for the State
of the relief sought by the petitioners.
2. The petitioners griev_ancet»i_s’e~ :ti1..at:”ie—..thi€.:
calculation of gratuity byjthe 181*’ l1=espondent’wasnot r L’
in accordance with of passed
in W.P.Nos.4s92–ziléo.r)/2_Qi[iin _ 17.1 1.2003.
Learned counsel reterring to the
order 16342/07 on
‘the petitioners are entitled
to theligfatulityil along with interest and
tvhereforeg dire’Cti,onivis sought to the respondents to
‘ .:.Vconsider’_’the-case of the petitioners on the basis of
“the ordejrsi’ passed in the aforementioned writ
petitions;
it 3. Having thus heard the petitioners counsel
“and learned Government Advocate for the State who
incidentally was the counsel who appeared in the
(N
2′?
I
aforementioned writ petition No.16342/07, the
respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioners on the aforesaid lines as regards pagtineiit
of gratuity with interest to which the peti’tiort.eref”2iite— *
entitled. g
4. In View of they .4subrni_slsion
learned Government advocatetlzat thetpietitioners are
required to give one” more-_~ re-p’i<esentation to the
Management in thisgre-gafrd,' – ifigsticvhgl 'application is
given by shall be considered
in accordancelwith law)'
Writ pgetitiionslstandldisposed of accordingly.
3d/'1
Iudgéf