High Court Karnataka High Court

Gouravva Mahadevappa Kokati vs Hubli Dharwad Muncipal Corpn on 12 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Gouravva Mahadevappa Kokati vs Hubli Dharwad Muncipal Corpn on 12 August, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA  

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD..._ : 

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY 05' At;oLI%g3'1*,n*%2oos  &  

BEFORE «

THE HONBLE MR.qUsTIoE RAVI MALIMATH"o %'  %

WRIT PETITION No;3§38o omoofs 

Gouravva Mahadevappfi'   h'  ~ . n 

w/o Late M.Sg.i{okati;"""'V.'::  o 

Aged    

Kerooni,      .

       r J ....PETI'I'IONER
  KUALAR RAI, ADVOCATE.)

AND: V % %  

1. Hubli   " Véid  Corporation
 Represontcd by its Commissioner.

'  ..Ci3ief Anéiitor,

H   

 Dharwad Municipal Corporation,
. . . . RESPONDENTS

_ (.}3Y:’Sf2I.R.G.DEVA}3HAR, ADVOCATE FOR R. 1.

RESPONDENT No.2-SERVED.)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and

‘$27 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction

£(–~

in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to fix,
regularise and pay the pension and othe1{‘”p7e.nsionary
benefits of the petitioner and etc. ‘ V. __ ‘ ,_ ‘

This petition coming on for .._

Court made the following: A _4
oRfiEnii
The petitioner ”

directing the respondents-Vto:–fiX,tA pay the

pension and otherapiensioriaiy to the petitioner.

2. V of the order dated
9.4.1999 ii. A}. eention No.25401/ 1997,
respondents and submitted the letter

vide”A.._nnLi’ the copy of the judmient

pasfi hy’*the’i’Hoi1’b1e High Court. The iearned counsel

” A respondent submits that as the request has

_ considered, the second petition on the

of action does not survive and that it is

in s by constructive res judicata. In View of the orders

‘passed in Writ Petition No.254() 1/ 1997, the contention

i of the respondent is berift of merits and unsustainable.

W/e—-»~

3. There is a specific dinection issued.’

Court directing the respondent–authoI’ities”_:to ‘

the plea of the petitioner fcji” ‘

benefits. The learned counsel forjthe .,

unable to show that the of Iietiiioner for
deterznination of has been
appropriately consideredvinorihvlthe the petitioner
has been In terms of the
order passed tlglelrequest made to the
were duty bound to
intimate’ i*egarding the result of her

request. ‘there has been faiinre on the part

. i 1 to comply with the said request.

aforesaid reasons, I pass the following

“”i’he first respondent is directed to fix, regularise

V’ pay the pension and other pensionaxy benefits of

e4~

the petitiona”, if she is entitled, in accordance with Iaw _

and to intimate the same to her within aperiod of

Weeks from the date ofreoeipt of 3 COPY of this ordfifirfl ‘. ~

Ordered accordingly.

guy-