Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

N V Manjunath Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors

N V Manjunath vs The State of Karnataka and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 09, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907481

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WRIT PETITION NO.23080/2010 (S-RES)
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[V.JAGANNATHAN J.] This w.p. is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents no.l to 3 to rove weightage of five years in addition to the qualifying service rendered by the petitioner and grant all the pensionary benefits and gratuity and refax...

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

N V Manjunath

Advocate SHRI BASAVAPAJ R.BANNUR,; M/S BANNUR ASSOCIATES, ADV

Respondent

The State of Karnataka and ors

Advocate SHRI JAGADISH MUNDARGI, Adv

Excerpt

[v.jagannathan j.] this w.p. is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents no.l to 3 to rove weightage of five years in addition to the qualifying service rendered by the petitioner and grant all the pensionary benefits and gratuity and refax the pension of the petitioner and also grant all the monitory benefits, as per pole 285(2)(v) & (vi) of kcsr rules, annexure- e to the writ petitionorder1. heard petitioner's counsel. government advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3.2. in view of the short point involved, this petition is disposed of finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.3. petitioner is before this court seeking a direction to the respondents to give weight age of additional five years of service as the petitioner took voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years of service and in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court to kcsr rule 285(2)(v) & (vi) and also placed reliance on the apex court decision reported in (1995h scc 507 and air 1990 sc 968 and the point which the petitioner's counsel wants to drive home for relying on the aforesaid decisions is that the teachers employed in various government aided private schools are also to be treated on par with the teachers in the government school.4. in the light of the aforesaid submission made and the main grievance being the respondents having not considered the representation given by the petitioner on 22.4.2010 till date, i am of the view that this petition can be disposed of by directing all the three respondents to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 22.4.2010(annexure-f) and to deal with the matter in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.petition is disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard petitioner's Counsel. Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3.

2. In view of the short point involved, this petition is disposed of finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner is before this court seeking a direction to the respondents to give weight age of additional five years of service as the petitioner took voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years of service and in this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to KCSR Rule 285(2)(v) & (vi) and also placed reliance on the Apex Court decision reported in (1995H SCC 507 and AIR 1990 SC 968 and the point which the petitioner's Counsel wants to drive home for relying on the aforesaid decisions is that the teachers employed in various Government aided private schools are also to be treated on par with the teachers in the Government school.

4. In the light of the aforesaid submission made and the main grievance being the respondents having not considered the representation given by the petitioner on 22.4.2010 till date, I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of by directing all the three respondents to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 22.4.2010(Annexure-F) and to deal with the matter in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial