Karnataka High Court
Sri Lokanath Shetty vs The Principal Accountant General (A And ... on 21 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
WP No. 3698 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.3698 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.LOKANATH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
S/O LATE MANJAPPA SHETTY
R/AT DOOR NO.25-23-1539
LOKNATH SHETTY COMPOUND
JAPPU BAPPAL 3RD CROSS
NEAR M.C.C BANK, NANDIGUDDA
JEPPU, VTC MANGALORE
POST: KANKANADY
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575002
BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN
NOT CLAIMED
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
signed by
ALBHAGYA AND:
Location:
HIGH 1. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT
COURT OF
GENERAL (A & E)
KARNATAKA
INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS
DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA
P.B.NO.5329/5369
PARK HOUSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 203
2. THE CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR
GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
WP No. 3698 of 2024
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
PORT NO 9, DEEN DAYAL UPADYAY MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 124
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. BANK OF BARODA
GROUND FLOOR
EXCEL MISCHIEF MALL
KSR ROAD, HAMPANAKATTA
MANGALORE - 575001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R.1 AND R.2;
SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R.3;
SRI.NAGARAJ DAMODAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DTD 07.06.2023, NO. BOB/
MANGAL/GEN/PEN/43/2023-24 ISSUED BY R-4 BANK
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the communication issued by respondent No.4 declining to -3- NC: 2024:KHC:7297 WP No. 3698 of 2024 extend benefit of 20% additional quantum of pension w.e.f 09.02.2021.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under; The petitioner is a retired State Government Employee. Petitioner claims that he was born on 10.02.1942 and has attained age of superannuation on 31.01.1994. The petitioner contends that he has completed 79 years on 09.02.2021 and therefore, he has entered into 80 years on 10.02.2021. It is in this background, representation was submitted to respondent No.4 - Bank to extend benefit of 20% additional quantum of pension in terms of the Government Order dated 13.10.2010. Respondent No.4 having communicated to respondent No.1 sent a communication to the District Treasury Office, Mangalore. Respondent No.4, in turn, received an endorsement from the concerned Authority indicating that petitioner is not eligible as the petitioner had not completed 80 years as on 09.02.2021. Assailing -4- NC: 2024:KHC:7297 WP No. 3698 of 2024 the impugned endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and learned AGA.
4. The controversy that is raised in the present captioned writ petition is no more res-integra. The Co-ordinate Bench in unreported judgment W.P.No.18753/2011 (S-R) has given quietus to the said issue. The paragraph No.6 would be relevant and the same reads as under;
"6. The 6th Central Pay Commissioner made recommendations for modification of Rules regulating pension/retirement/death /service/gratuity/family pension/ disability pension and ex-gratia lump sum compensation. Accordingly by Act 23 of 2009 Section 17(B) of the Act came to be inserted providing for payment of additional quantum of pension as specified in the table referred to above. A -5- NC: 2024:KHC:7297 WP No. 3698 of 2024 reading of Section 17(B) of the Act specifies that from 80 years to less that 85 years a retired Judge is entitled for additional quantum at 20% of basic pension. The object of inserting Section 17(B) of the Act is to provide additional quantum of pension to mitigate the old age sickness and dependency. This is a social piece of legislation. An aged man shall enjoy the benefit under Section 17(b) of the Act at the earliest point of time. the words 'From 80 years to less than 85 years' in Section 17(B) of the Act manifestly makes it clear that it is from the commencing point of 80th year a retired Judge is entitled for 20% of additional quantum of pension for a period of 5 years, that is, up to the end of 84th year. Therefore this benefit is to be extended from first day of 80th year and not from the first day of 81st year. Hence, the impugned endorsement is contrary to the object of insertion of Section 17(B) of the Act. On this ground, the impugned endorsement Annexure-B is liable to be quashed."
5. Referring to 17(B) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1994 and also -6- NC: 2024:KHC:7297 WP No. 3698 of 2024 taking cognizance of the 2009 amendment, this Court was of the view that retired Judges are entitled for 20% of additional quantum of pension and commencing point would be 80 years of a retired Judge.
6. It would be useful to refer to the Government Notification dated 13.10.2010, which would have a direct bearing on the claim made by the petitioner. The relevant portion reads as under;
"In G.O dated 13.10.2010 read above, sanction was accorded to grant the Additional Pension/Family Pension to the State Government Pensioners/Family Pensioners, who have retired or died while in service prior to 01.07.1993 and who are above 80 years in the following rates, w.e.f. 01.04.2006:
Age of Pensioners/Family Additional Pension / Pensioners as on Family Pension from 01.04.2006 01.04.2006 From 80 years to 20% of basic pension/ less than 85 years family pension -7- NC: 2024:KHC:7297 WP No. 3698 of 2024 30% of basic From 85 years to pension / family less than 90 years pension 50% of basic Above 90 years pension/ family pension
7. On examination of the table indicated in the Government Order dated 13.10.2010, it is clearly evident that from 80 years to less than 85 years, the retired Government Servant is entitled for 20% of basic pension of family pension as the case may be.
8. If these significant details are looked into, then I am of the view that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are bound to consider petitioner's claim of additional 20% of basic pension in the light of the Government order dated 13.10.2010.
9. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has a legal right to seek benefit of 20% of the basic pension as he had entered into 80 years as on 09.02.2023.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:7297 WP No. 3698 of 2024
10. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereby directed to treat the writ petition as representation.
(iii) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereby directed to extend the benefit of 20% additional quantum of pension from 09.02.2021 in terms of the Government Order dated 13.10.2010 as per Annexure-C.
(iv) While considering representation, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are bound to take cognizance of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case though it pertains to a Former Judge of this Court and shall also take cognizance of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.105189/2014. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:7297 WP No. 3698 of 2024
(v) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall decide the representation in the light of the observations made supra within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(vi) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12