IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BEH.CHA__T.;* " DHARWAD. DATED THIS THE Ierh DAY OF EEBRUAHY"20C:_e. PRESENT % A THE HON'BLE MR.JUS_TI..CE 1§i.'I«:.11§ATIL',:v' THE HON'BLE MR. .}='A :CuY'HHAPURE Writ Petition No.' 27,156 Between: Sri G.N.Malager _V S/0 Nagappa .... 3 '-2;: Aged about 52 years" I Division Asst', -- ' I M District Health 'and Fanzily Welfa-r_e"O'ffice Haveri " I ' _ 7 " T. .. Petitioner (By_Sri H.M.,§_Dharigond,"Advocate) And: , ' I 1.
The}”‘;)§isTt:I«$t”Iiéa1_:I{; ‘8; FW Officer
V I , Haveri’ District ‘ ” ‘
I-Iaveri
‘ 2 .’ :”.T£Te”’DireCtor”” ..
De~pé:rtnie~:1t of Health 83 Family
” Welfaref-Eervices
Ahand; Rao Circle
j Bangalore
‘ ~ .. ? A “State of Kamataka
Represented by its Secretary
ff
6. After careful perusal of the relevant material on theyfile,
what emerges is that in fact the Social Welfare
Secretariat issued the Circular dated 28.06.1991 beari_ng_N:o}’* swi;
104 SAD 91. The same was published 3
18.07 .1991 clarifying that ordinance has been issued.lincllud*ing V
“Naik”, “Nayak”, “Beda”, “Bedar” and “ii/”aln1iki”hconirnui-iitilesiiiunder
the Schedule Tribes with throughout the
state of Karnataka. It is significant:_to’V’note thatl.lfthe_’..petitioner has
not chosen to challenlge:V:’–the:i__i by the State
Government extend the benefit
retrospectively’froirn_tl§;e ‘ appointinent i.e., 14.05.1979 as
a Scheduled Tril’beliand e.>rtend,_la’ll:tri.e consequential benefits. As
rightly pointed out by”th_e’learned Additional Government Advocate
beaccepted. It is not the case of the appellant
that -at1eetie~iae~d the Circular dated 28.06.1991. The
i’iv._;i’ribunal t-a_l<ing 'alhthese relevant factors into consideration and
9 reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
order passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Cioi1rt_.dated 18.11.1991 in writ petition No.22662/1991, the Full
of the Tribunal in the case of Rangaswarny Nayak (supra)
2'///'/9