Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA W.P.No.110310/2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN
SHOBHA W/O GURUPADAPPA @ GURAPPA YARGATTI, AGE: ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: C/O: MAHABALESHWR S/O CHANNAVEERANNA, SAVANUR, HONNIHALLI, TQ: SAUDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
1 . SMT.SAVITRI W/O GURUPADAPPA @ GURAPPA YARAGATTI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HEBASUR, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2 . SMT. CHINNAWWA W/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA YARAGATTI, AGE:78 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHIKKANARAGUND, TQ:NARAGUND.
3 . THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, (STAFF), N.W.K.R.T.C. BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.
4 . THE ASSISTANT P.F. COMMISSIONER SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
: 2 : BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK NO.10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580025. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 & 4 SERVED; R2- DECEASED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 & 4 TO PROVIDE PENSIONERY BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AS PER COMPROMISE PETITION DT. 10-08-2004 IN P& SC 1/2004 FILED BEFORE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR DN) GADAG PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The prayer in the petition is for a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondent to provide pensionary benefit to the petitioner as per the terms of compromise dated 10.08.2004 in P & SC 1/2004.
In the light of the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased have entered into a compromise and have decided to apportion the said benefits, the Corporation would be required to respect the said arrangement and act accordingly.
: 3 : 3. I therefore direct the Corporation and also the Provident Fund Commissioner to provide the benefit to the petitioner as envisaged in the compromise entered into in P&SC 1/2004. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 4. Since, the litigation is confined only between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the necessity of bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 on record would be unnecessary.
Sd/- JUDGE KGK