High Court Karnataka High Court

S Mylarappa vs The Govt. Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
S Mylarappa vs The Govt. Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOEE

{DATED THIS THE 29:12 my 01:' OCTOBER 2m9L'%L % 

BEFORE

'THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICEZAJYF.   
WRIT PETITION NO.258§Of'2CQ9V(GIvi§§R¢s.) 

BETWEEN :

S;ri.S.My1arappa,

S / <}.Sam:1a Neelappa,

Aged about 78 years, -» V g 1  V
Resitiing at Ku,ndurVvi1lage',* --  " 
Kasaba Hobii,    2:  " .' '
Hosadurga   *  __ "    .
Chit:radurga »     ...PE'1'ITIONER

 Adv.)

AND :

   of 

 '

' Répresénféid by the
 ' Pfincigyai Saéretary,

'-- R$Vdfiii§3« .D€{§-az:*t1:ncI":t:,
f»1.E'3.BL1§1di:1g,
Ba;.2ga§01's  560 Of) 1.

.' The bégfiuty Commissioner,
 Cliiiraciurga Qistrict,
 .Chiiira.du1'ga.

T --, 3'.""'I'he Asst. Commissianer,

Chitraciurga SLzb-Divisien,
Chjtradurga.



4. The Tahasildar,
§~1osadurgaTa1uk,   3 ,_ 
Hosadurga District. ...RBSPQ3T%3DENT'S " "

(By Sri.N.B.Viswana1:h, AGA)   

This writ petition is {jet}. under '£~\._1'tic1es."_e_2'26'  '

227 of the Constitution of Indiawwith 3 prayer 
the respondent authorities to "release a:nd'paynf1'ent of

compassienate aliowanee to pe%;i_vtione:'” by _tB,kiz1g
action on the representatienrs giver.1_b3r the petifioner
viée Annexures ‘B’, ‘E’ j. ”

This ‘f}’n…..fer preliminary’
hearing in V’ dagf, » Court made the
following: ‘ e e ‘

e-7§e0§EER

The ‘pefitiofiexe as 3. Pete} ‘viliage

_ oflieexjgof L. fiflege, Kasaba Bobli, Hosadunga

District. imrsuant ts a Government

Ofdertat. ‘B’, he is entitled far remuneratien

V fer he§’§ngj:Aee1’§red as Village Offieer. The policy of the

” aceerding to the petiiioner, is ts)

Z -t:o1i:_I3éf1sat6 Pfirseas who have met their poeitiom %

-3-

Village Ofiicer due to aboiition of the said efiice. Tlje
case of the petitioner is that he is in the advanced”:
of 378 years. Hence, he has given several ”
to the Government for payment effiie
The grievance of the petitioner is
considered. Hence, this writ Ah ‘ T V t

2. Piaviflg regard tp fiii1″”ider1ti(:a}
matters, a direction has fij-.e’_Govemment

for payment of ;’er’e1j11erafien,~’: tE1e:r”e~i_i~s,;_1é reason for me

to take a”dViffere:1t tl;e”‘0i3e taken in the earlier
decision. Hetice, t’erd-er is passed:

I 2 shall consider the

3 w:’epreee:11t£fi:ie:1A gee: “” “iey the pefifiener for g:ra1:”;.t of

x 2 _ V “_j..

A is six morxths fiem the date of receipt

” a eopf-at” this order.

«’ -Eéetitioxx stazlds disposed of 8.C(:OI’diI1gI_”‘§L

-4-

3. Mr.N.B.VishwaIath, iearned Ad’ditio;1:;a..’};”‘._V

Cr()Vf3I’1’1Ifi(*?IE Advocate appmring for the respond§fit§ _

permitted to file memod ap};>ea1*ance3yit1*Iin fm_’:1*=_ ‘4

SR3