High Court Karnataka High Court

Lakshman S/O Maruti Ambi vs Government Of India on 14 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Lakshman S/O Maruti Ambi vs Government Of India on 14 September, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
WP No.64972 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2099
% BEFORE Q V'
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs'rIcE AJIT    '
WRIT PETITION No.64972']'20<)9  
BETWEEN:   A i   % H?

Lakshman, S /0 Maruti Ambi;*ve.D.V"'*~.
Age: 42 years, Occ: Ex~serviCe_:fi'a,_n,*.._V
R/0 Pachhapur, Tq: }?eIL~1;ker'iV, "  1'  H "

Dist: Belgaum.   -   "    ...1=ETIT10NER

(By Sri. B.V.SQ:r1a_pur;,"AdvDpéfte):'e.._! 

AND;
1 . G0vea=nmeVnt Df"  " < 
by its Se_C3'e»ta1'V, Horifge Department,

New De1Hi.._ ' ~ 

 * 2. V'Dire"et0f%' €3e1'1.era"E","
' , "Bor--:1erCS~eCurity Force,

' v..DB10c.k"V1\?0.1'Q,~'C--4O complex,

 Lodi §<oad.,3=New Deihi.

 3. Ci0:r1v"i1§;a.°vr'1c¥a.nt,
V' .. D84, Battalion ESE'

_  Road, Jaisalmer,
"Raj asthan. ...RESF'OND}3N'I'S

  fay Sri. Gangadhar.S.H0sa}«:eri, Adv. for R1 to R3)



WP No.64972 of 2009

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and .227' of
the Constitution of India praying to direct", the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his j0«b"~xiv"i.th--_a11

facilities or given him pension from the-.’_jdate _”of
acceptance of his resignation. ” ‘

This petition coming on theu’
Court made the following: ‘ hi i’ A
ORDER’

Even though this matt.e’r~..pis listed With’

consent, it is taken up for finai *d._i’spos_a1.

2. Petitioner joined;’the’-servi_ce’sii_’of ‘respondent as a

constables’i1i.iV7»thei1V’§Borde.r Seciirity Force. He served the
Border’SecurityVgF’o:’ce’–~Li.n’tii” his resignation was accepted.

The_p.etitioine.r gave representation to respondent No.3

a”-to'”‘sari’c’tio’n_pensionary benefits. The grievance of the

ii’–petitiioniewru i’1sfthvose terminal benefits have not been given

to ,I’ence another re resentation is iven on
.. P E

22,_.12..2–CiO6, a copy of which is produced at An.neXure–D.

“The*i”grievance is that the said representation is not

“considered.

perrni-tted in the Registry within four weeks.

WP N064972 of 2009′

3. When the matter is taken up, Mr.Ganga_c_i_har.S.
Hosakeri, learned counsel appearing for the respotidents
submits that they would Consider the reprleéent;:1ti’o11:’h’_”ofl’~.”
the petitioner for granting terminai”benef§_<ts b
with law. Hence the foilowing order '~ . «. ll

o R
Responderttjfj lVc«-_._2 V eortsider the
representation at dated

22. .7. ‘within c;rt’o.tOu«ter*l”.Zt’n1_i’t six months

from the” rec__éz7pt order. The said

consict’e:jt”ztiE3_:rj; ffl-Otecliordance with law.

It is covz1fine_otAVo%:!_u.V_to.Ahis_ltern:.in§al benefits.
Petit’2’o_4nhl 3vtdf1dS’dis;§osed of accordingiy.
ll”‘M36-éLn’gad’Vt;.ar.S.Hoelakeri, learned counsel, is

i

Sd/ii.

Iudqe

«UK

‘ Iffrix;-*=?*V