Karnataka High Court
Sri S Nagarajan vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2013
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Writ Petition No.19089 of 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI S NAGARAJAN
S/O LATE SRI S.G. SRINIVASACHAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.72, 1ST CROSS
ANANDA NAGAR,
MARATHAHALLI POST
BANGALORE - 560 037 ... PETITIONER
[By Sri M P Srikanth, Adv. for
Sri M S Parthasarathi, Advs.]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
M S BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS & EX-OFFICIO
SECRETARY/TREASURER
KARNATAKA STATE TEACHERS'
BENEFIT FUND
SHIKSHAKARA SADAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 002 ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri Raghavendra G Gayatri, AGA]
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION DATED 27.03.2012, PASSED BY THE R2, AT
ANNEXURE - L AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Writ petitioner was an employee of the 2nd respondent - Karnataka State Teachers' Benefit Fund - A Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
2. The Society had been set up for looking after the interest of the Teachers in Government Schools, Aided Schools and Private Schools and the funds are to be utilized for its members in times of crisis hour and in the hour of need.
3. Employees in the private employment of the 2nd respondent found it appears the State Government had permitted the Society to adopt the service conditions acceptable to the State Government employees in respect of the employees of the society also, but without any 3 financial implications or repercussions on the State Government.
4. In the present writ petition, petitioner claims to be aggrieved by a resolution dated 27.3.2012 (copy produced at Annexure L) passed by the 2nd respondent. The retiral benefits that were due to the petitioner particularly, in respect of the quantum of gratuity amount, which the petitioner has received, on his retiring from the service of the 2nd respondent - Society has been payable in terms of a Group Insurance Policy, which the Society had taken for the benefit of its employees governed by certain rules of Group Insurance Policy, (copy produced at Annexure F) as per Rule 8 in Section IV of this Rules reading as under :-
"8. Benefits on Survival to Normal Retirement Date:
Upon a Member's retirement at Normal Retirement Date, there shall become payable to the Trustees, for the benefit of the Member, an amount equal to 15 days' salary as on the Annual Renewal Date last preceding the Normal 4 Retirement Date multiplied by the total number of years of service completed by the member, subject to a maximum of Twenty months' salary. The Trustees shall pay the benefits to the Member in accordance with the provisions of Appendix(1)"
5. An employee, who has been made a member of the scheme by the employer and who receives the amount as a trustee for the benefit of the employees has to make payment in terms of the computation to Appendix I to the scheme and insofar as the petitioner is concerned though a sum of Rs.5,74,996 had been released by LIC, the Committee in terms of the subsequent resolution dated 27.3.2012 has now resolved to make payment of a sum of Rs.2,77,200/- only, which will be the gratuity amount payable to a government employee, who retires on service and who draws salary on par with that of the petitioner and it is because of such a resolution by the Society and its committee that the retiral benefits to the employees of the society will be only as per the benefits available to the 5 State Government employee and not as per the scheme, hence the present writ petition questioning the legality of this resolution so far as it affects the petitioner's interest is concerned.
6. In this background petitioner has sought for the following prayer:-
"a) Quash the reolution dated 27.3.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure L in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Further direct the 2nd respondent to releae the entire amount of the retiral benefit as proviced under Section IV Clause 8 of the Rules scheme to the petitioner."
7. Notice had been issued to the respondents and are represented by Mr. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned AGA and a detailed statement of objections is filed.
8. What is essentially urged on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner being an employee of the 6 committee constituted to maintain the Teachers Benefit Fund in respect of the employees of the committee, the State Government having already approved as per its order dated 15.4.1981, the service benefits given to such employees is as is available to civil servants working in the Government Department, on approval of the Government without liability on the part of the Government, but it is for the Committee to manage the funds of retiral benefits to its employees and as the committee was settling the benefits in terms of the benefits available to a civil servant in the Government service, there was no occasion for taking a private group insurance policy as the group insurance scheme is only in respect of such employees, who were not covered by any other scheme or arrangement for providing the retiral benefits; that the scheme itself has come into vogue w.e.f. 1.11.1995, but long back employees of the committee were being extended the retiral benefits available to the government servants and DCRG amount payable to such retiring employees is only 7 on par with the government servants and not any higher amount than that, which is entitled to the government servants etc. It is also urged on behalf of the respondents that reliance is placed by the writ petitioner for claiming benefit under a group insurance scheme with LIC based on a resolution of the committee dated 26.3.1988 (copy produced at Annexure E) is not a resolution that can be accepted at its face value with group insurance scheme for payment of arrears with regard to some employees, which was not a resolution that could have been made at the relevant time as the scheme itself came into vogue w.e.f. 1995; that the role of the petitioner in placing a resolution of the year 1988 before the court is highly suspicious and doubtful; that the resolution is not accepted by the respondents, but that apart there is no scope for getting any other insurance policy as is sought to be taken out in the year 1995 as the employees of committee were satisfied that they were already getting the benefits on par with Government servants and therefore, looking to the 8 suspicious manner of such developments, which have taken place and particularly, premium for taking out group insurance policy had been entirely debited to the funds of the committee and the employees having not made a claim to that though the scheme contemplated contribution by the employee also, the committee has now resolved payment of gratuity amount to the retiring employees of the society/committee will be only on par with the government employees and not as per the scheme and the difference of the amount, therefore, was resolved to be utilized for extending several service benefits to the employees.
9. Mr. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently countered the allegations being made against the petitioner and that the petitioner was only a stenographer at that relevant time and could not have played an active role for bringing about some change for ensuring that entire premium was paid by the 9 committee funds and not by any employee, but that apart, the committee cannot enrich itself at the cost of a retiring employee as the group insurance scheme stipulates that the benefit should be extended to the employee as per the scheme and the committee actually acts as a trustee and therefore, in any way diverted the amount to the retiring employees.
10. The petitioner has questioned the legality of a resolution and has sought for quashing of the part of the resolution, which is with reference to the terms of the group insurance scheme urged as being contrary to the terms of the scheme. On the other hand, respondents have contended that the scheme itself was not applicable; that it is the result of some manipulations made by some of the employees of the committee at the relevant point of time; that a resolution of the year 1988 being shown for the purpose of a group insurance scheme under which the employees were made members in the year 1995 itself is 10 suspicious circumstances; that at any rate the employee who had not made any contribution to the premium amount cannot put forth any claim in respect of the amounts received from the group insurance policy scheme; that the amount at any rate is being utilized only for the benefit of the employees, but the benefit to a retiring employee insofar as the gratuity is concerned it is being maintained on par with the benefit available to a retiring government employee and therefore, no exception can be taken and no need for quashing etc.
11. An examination of this nature of petition is rather time consuming involving the details and going into the factual verification of assertions and counter assertions etc. At any rate, resolution cannot be characterized as a mala fide resolution only to victimize the employee, but one taken in the larger interest of employees to ensure that the employees are assured of the benefits as are available to a retiring government employee. Some 11 employees getting some additional benefits or special benefits in some circumstances, can only bring about acrimony or hot burn to other employees, therefore, in a matter of this nature, I am of the opinion, that it is not necessary for this court to examine further merits of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition nor is it feasible for this court to examine all resolutions even private and to declare them illegal and quash the same exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. I do not find any need or necessity for interfering in respect of such matters in writ jurisdiction. It is therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and remedies available to the petitioner elsewhere in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG*