Nagamma W/O Late Shivaputrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF' AUGUST zzm _

BEFORE

THE HON'I3LE MR. JUSTI_CE,_AJIT'J   

WRIT PETITION NO.25555:i20; 1 U 
BETWEEN : TV ' 2 V' 'A AA '

NAGAMMA W/O LATE SHNAPUTRAPPA
MALLESHAPPA NARAI~3ENCHI2AYiNe';To QUASH' . '
THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH'_RES£2QNDENT V
DATED 24.5.2010 MARKED AS ANNEXUREEAND LSERECT
THE 4TH RESPONDENT To,.ecoNS1D.I£R THE='C{ASE OF THE.

PETITIONER ACCORDING TO .

THIS WRIT PETITIQN co'MiN--ri"'-oN EDRAAPEELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, TH_E'- ccaiii-?.fr,1vL4\_:)E~ THE FOLLOWING :

Havaldar ._andVSerVed_i'n.the Special Task Force in the An1:i~

Veerappai-1'_"operatiohs-  14.05.1993 to 28.12.1995. It

  petitioIV1evT'sA:huSband was deputed intially, but

  of illhealth, he returned. Eventually,

 the petitioner died. Petitioner alleges that

 wheia ..ti1.e.'eIairr1 was made with the fourth respondent

 compensation of R55 Iakhs under the Group

 iiisuranee Scheme, an endorsement is issued at

fie



Annexure~E indicating that the petitioner is not entitied
for the said relief inasmuch as the said  be
paid only to those persons who have died 
in Anti~Veerappan operations.  it it 9

2. The claim of the  
for a certain benefit as   circular
inasmuch as her husband  Speciai Task
Force between  i.e., more than

2% years \;xi1ich;'mar.k  certain benefits
of cash ta    am of the View that the
petitioner is%%requdirdeddV_te_:'gi'J'e a fresh representation to the

concerned autihorities seeking compensation as per the

'V"circ'uiai*R.:' She is also required to make it clear in the

it her husband was working with the

STF? betwééfi 14.05.1993 and 28.12.1995. On such

  .Ve»."1<eprese11tation being given, the respondents shali consider

  the "same in accordance with Iaw, having regard to the

T  "circular. Hence the foiiowing: W

X



 appearance &t~*3'thir1 efr.p.eriod of four weeks.

 V   

ORDER

1] A representation shall be giveI1..j”vltjy»_t”‘–the

petitioner within a period of eight’-weieits

the date of receipt of this order.’ it ‘é

II) On such representéi’ti_oii_tztbeirlgi’

concerned authortfiets/reVspo11c1e’r1tV°~–:No:4″‘ shall V

consider the same at} ‘puteir limit of
three of receipt of the
reference to the
With t;hetset~ petition stands
disposed of. t in % V’ H
Sri ;.1’IareI1o1ia: Iearned High Court

Gofiterrtmeilt ?Pieétder ttttt Npvermitted to file memo of

Sd/-§_e_’ “T
Iudge