Respondent No.1 is Karnataka State Patels Sangha and Respondent No.
Enhanced ad hoc allowance at Rs.500/ a month made payable to such of those Ex hereditary Patels by order at Annexure B dated May 30,1994 is made payable from July 1, 1990 instead of from January 1, 1994.
If the petitioner Patel Srinivasa Reddy in P.No.33919 has made application either for grant of companypassionate allowance or for grant of adhoc allowance pursuant to the orders at Annexures A and B before the appropriate authority, that application or those applications shall be companysidered on merits and if he is found eligible, he shall be paid companypassionate allowance at Rs.100/ a month from 01 08 1979 till 30 06 1990 and ad hoc allowance at Rs.500/ from 01 07 1990 till date.
Therefore, the grievance of the Association of Patels i.e. the members of the Association was that when the Shanbhogues were given the benefit w.e.f.
2 is Patel Srinivasa Reddy.
Since it was denied to them, therefore, they filed writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka seeking a direction against the State Government for extending the similar benefit as was given to the Shanbhogues.
Accordingly, such of those persons who are drawing the adhoc allowance of Rs.500/ would be entitled to the arrears at that rate from 01 07 1990 to 01 01 1994.
Applications, if any, by persons claiming to be Gumasta Patel are pending before the companypetent authorities, those applications shall be companysidered on merits and if they are otherwise found eligible they shall be paid companypassionate allowance at Rs.100/ a month from 01 08 1979 to 30 06 1990 and ad hoc allowance at Rs.500/ from 01 07 1990 till date.
RD 443 MVS 182 dated 20 9 1984 Annexure A to the Ex hereditary Patels is made payable from August 1,1979 instead of from August 15,1984.
So far as Patels are companycerned, their demand for grant of similar treatment i.e. ad hoc pension or companypassionate allowance at the rate of Rs.100/ per month was also companyceded by the State with effect from 1.8.1984 and similarly, the enhancement of companypassionate allowance was also made to Rs.500/ per month with effect from 30.5.1994.
After abolition of these village offices, Shanbhogues were granted companypassionate allowance or ad hoc pension at the rate of Rs.100/ per month with effect from 30.7.1979 and the same was raised to Rs.500/ per month with effect from 20.7.1991.
Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court the appellants have filed the present appeals.
The present writ petition was filed by the respondents claiming similar treatment as was given to Shanbhogues category of Village Officers.
Such of those persons who received companypassionate allowance at Rs.100/ a month pursuant to the order at Annexure A are therefore entitled to the arrears at that rate from 01 08 1979 to 15 08 1984.
The companytention in the writ petition was that both Patels as well as Shanbhogues are holders of similar offices within the meaning of Section 2 n of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act .
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.850 OF 2006.
Aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge, the matter was taken up before the Division Bench and the Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
30.7.79 20.7.1991, then similar treatment should also be given to the members of the Respondent No.1 Association with effect from the same date as they were similarly situated.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and granted similar benefit with retrospective effect as was given to the Shanbhogues i.e. ad hoc pension of Rs.100/ with effect from the same date as was given to the Shanbhogues Village Officers and likewise enhanced allowance at the rate of Rs.500/ from the same date as was given to the Shanbhogues.
i Compassionate allowance made payable by Government Order No.
K. MATHUR, J. These appeals are directed against the orders passed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 25.2.2002 and 18.7.2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed the direction given by the learned Single Judge which reads as follows 12.
