Sri Shree Shail Dundappa Taranalli vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Shree Shail Dundappa Taranalli vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2015

Bench: S Abdul Nazeer

                         1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S ABDUL NAZEER

       WRIT PETITION NO.5214 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI.SHREE SHAIL DUNDAPPA TARANALLI
S/O.DUNDAPPA
AGED 67 YEARS
ADVOCATE (RETIRED SPECIAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR), 'A' BLOCK, B-8
JNANESHWARI APARTMENT, V.T.ROAD
MANGALORE - 1.
                                   ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SADASHIVAIAH.K.G., ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
       (ADMINISTRATION-1)
       DEPARTMETN OF LAW AND JUSTICE
       AND HUMAN RIGHTS
       VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF HOME (LAW AND ORDER,
       COFEPOSA AND PROSECUTIONS)
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                 2


3.    THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION
      (DISPUTES PROSECUTIONS
      CAUVERY BHAVAN)
      BANGALORE - 560 001.
                             ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.H.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FIX THE
REMUNERATION IN PAR WITH THE SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROESECUTORS APPOINTED BY THE R-2 AND PAY
THE SAME FOR A PERIOD FROM 22.6.2007 TO 21.6.2012
WITH INTEREST FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed a representation as per Annexure-H requesting the third respondent to make payment in a total sum of Rs.7,19,152/- towards the monthly remuneration for having worked as a Special Public Prosecutor in Fast Track Court at Mangalore.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the representation was filed on 12.8.2014, the same has not been considered.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the third respondent has to consider the representation within a time frame. Therefore, I direct the third respondent to consider the representation at Annexure-H in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE VMB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court