Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Siddangouda Shivabasanagouda ... vs The Principal Accountant General ( A & E) on 3 September, 2014

                             :1:



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                  DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA

          WRIT PETITION NO.105189/2014 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SIDDANGOUDA SHIVABASANAGOUDA AYYANGOUDRA
AGE: 80 YEARS,
OCC:NIL
R/O. PLOT NO. 31-32, NANDI NIVAS,
MANOJA HEIGHTS, IST MAIN,
RAJIVANAGAR,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.
DIST: DHARWAD.
                                     ....... PETITIONER
(By Sri. RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI, ADV. )

AND

1.    THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A & E)
      INDIAN AUDIT & ACCOUNTS
      DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA
      P.B.NO. 5329/5369
      PARK HOUSE ROAD,
      BANGALORE 560 003.

2.    THE DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER
      & OFFICER PUBLIC INFORMATION
      KARNATAKA STATE MARKETING COMMITTEE
      NO.16, 2ND RAJABHAVAN ROAD
                                   :2:



    P B NO. 5254,
    BANGALORE 560 001.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. M. KESHAVAREDDY, AGA FOR
 R1 & R2 )

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

I) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 03.01.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

II) DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF
20% ADDITIONAL QUANTUM OF PENSION FROM 13.04.2013 AS
PER G.O. DATED 13.10.2010 i.e. ANNEXURE-A WITH INTEREST
OF 6%.

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


                         O R D E R

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the communication dated 3.1.2014 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-E and has sought for writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to extend the benefit of 20% additional quantum of pension from 13.4.2013 as per G.O. dated 13.10.2010 vide Annexure-A. :3:

2. It is stated, the petitioner retired from service on 30.4.1992 after attaining the age of superannuation. As per G.O. dated 13.10.2010, the petitioner is entitled to receive 20% additional quantum of pension from 80 to 85 years. The petitioner has completed 79th year on 13.4.2013. His 80th year starts from 13.4.2013. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of G.O. dated 13.10.2010 from 13.4.2013. The petitioner has given representation to extend the benefit. The second respondent has issued communication dated 3.1.2014 as per Annexure-E rejecting the request of the petitioner and stating that the petitioner completes 80th year on 13.4.2014 and thereafter his request will be considered. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned communication cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the matter is covered by the :4: decision of this court in W.P.No.18753/2011 wherein it has been held that the benefit has to be extended from the first day of 80th year and not after completion of 80th year. Therefore, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law.

4. As against this, the learned AGA submitted that the matter is covered by the decision of this court in W.P.No.18753/2011.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In W.P.No.18753/11 this court has held that the benefit has to be extended from the first day of 80th year and not from the first day of 81st year. Perusal of Annexure-A shows that from 80 to 85 years 20% additional quantum of pension needs to be paid. The decision in W.P.No.18753/2011 is squarely applicable to :5: this case. Therefore, the 2nd respondent was not justified in issuing the communication at Annexure-E. The petitioner is entitled to 20% additional quantum of pension from the first day of 80th year i.e. 13.4.2013. Therefore, the impugned communication cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned communication dated 3.1.2014 vide Annexure-E is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to pay 20% additional quantum of pension in terms of Annexure-A from the first day of 80th year i.e. 13.4.2013 with 6% interest per annum.

Sd/-

JUDGE Dvr: