Rajkumar Sheelvant S/O Sharnappa ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rajkumar Sheelvant S/O Sharnappa ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2013

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                              1           W.P.No.103707/2013




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 GULBARGA BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
                          BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
        WRIT PETITION NO.103707/2013 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

Rajkumar Sheelvant S/o Sharnappa Sheelvant
Age: 41 years, Occ: Government Servant,
Now serving as Second Division Assistant,
In the office of Education Commissioner, Gulbarga,
R/o Gulbarga, District Gulbarga.
                                        ... Petitioner
(By Sri K.M. Ghate, Advocate)

AND:

1.     State of Karnataka,
       Through its under Secretary,
       Education Department (Primary),
       M.S. Building, Bangalore - 01.

2.     The Additional Commissioner for Education,
       Department of Education,
       Iwan-E-Shahi, Gulbarga.

3.     The Deputy Director of Public
       Instructions, Bidar, District Bidar.

4.     The Block Education Officer,
       Taluka Bidar, Dist: Bidar.             ... Respondents

(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Govt. Adv.)
                                 2               W.P.No.103707/2013




     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of
mandamus or any other writ, or order, direction to the
4th respondent to attend the grievance of the petitioner
forthwith as per Annexure-G, enabling the petitioner get
claimed his monthly salary as per rules.

     This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following:

                              ORDER

The grievance of the petitioner is that being employed under the services of the State, the respondent-State and its Education Department has failed to pay salary for a period of over one year. If that is so, then it is a "service matter" falling within the definition of the said term under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and therefore, petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Petition is accordingly rejected. 3 W.P.No.103707/2013

The Registry is directed to return originals of records, if annexed, to the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE LG

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court