K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary for the period from 30-4-1994 to 30-4-1996 and fix the pension on the basis of the last salary that could be paid on 30-4-1996.

( 2 ) THE respondents 1 to 3 are represented by Sri H. S Surendra, learned High Court Government Pleader. The respondent 4 is represented by Sri B. G. Sridharan, learned Counsel.

( 3 ) HEARD arguments.

( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under.- during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died. Therefore, his L. Rs, have come on record. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as an Attender in the Department of Agricultural produce Marketing Committee in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. After reorganisation on 1-1-1957, the petitioner was transferred to the agricultural Produce Marketing Committee under the jurisdiction of the kamataka State. As per the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules, 1952 governing the service conditions of the petitioner, the age of superannuation was 60 years. As per the Service Register, the petitioner's date of birth was 5-4-1936 and the petitioner to complete the age of 60 on 30-4-1996, but the respondents, on the petitioner attaining the age of 58 years on 30-4-1994, issued an order of retirement from service. Feeling aggrieved by the order of retirement, the petitioner filed an Application No. 106 of 1995 before the Karnataka Administrative tribunal (in short, 'the KAT), Bangalore. The Tribunal by its order dated 27-9-1995, allowed the application and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in-service and give all monetary benefits arising out of the service conditions (vide Annexure-A ). After the Tribunal passed the order as per Annexure-A, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent and made representation to reinstate the petitioner in service (vide Annexure-B), and requested to extend benefits as per the order at Annexure-A. The 4th respondent forwarded the petitioner's representation at Annexure-B to the 2nd respondent seeking direction as per Annexure-C, but the petitioner was not reinstated nor given the benefits, and in the meanwhile he completed the age of superannuation of 60 years on 30-4-1996. Therefore, the petitioner, by his representation dated 30-7-1996 (Annexure-D), requested the respondent 4 to sanction the salary for two years and also consider the pension to be fixed on the basis of the salary that would be fixed on 30-4-1996. Again, the respondent 4, by its letter dated 27-9-1996, requested the 2nd respondent to issue direction with regard to payment of salary, etc. , as per Annexure-E. The respondent 4, instead of paying salary and fixing pension, filed a review petition before the KAT in No. 120 of 1997, which came to be dismissed on 26-5-1997 at the stage of preliminary hearing (Annexure-F ). Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus.

( 5 ) THE respondents have not filed statement of objections.

( 6 ) DURING the course of argument, the learned Counsels for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner could have approached this Court for enforcement of the order of the Tribunal at Annexure-A, but he has not done so, and therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. The contention of the learned Counsels for the respondents is devoid of any merit. On the other hand, it indicates that the respondents have disobeyed the order of the Tribunal.

( 7 ) IN view of the order of the KAT in favour of the petitioner as per annexure-A directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all monetary benefits arising out of the service conditions, I need not dwell upon the merits of the case. However, in the academic interest, it is necessary to deal with the merits of the case and the position of law. In pursuance of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document