Karnataka High Court
Union Of India Ors vs Sharanappa Dage S/O Saibanna Dage on 6 September, 2012
Author: D V Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D V Shylendra Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2012
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
Writ Petition No.81476 of 2012[S-CAT]
BETWEEN
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
DAK BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,
KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. POST MASTER GENERAL,
NORTH KARNATAKA REGION,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL),
NORTH KARNATAKA REGION,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
5. SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
GULBARGA DIVISION,
GULBARGA - 585 101.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri./Smt : Prakash R. Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND
SHARANAPPA DAGE,
S/O SAIBANNA DAGE,
AGE: 71 YEARS,
2
(RTD, C1-IV, YADAGIRI HO)
R/O UDACHAN VILLAGE,
POST MASHAL,
AFZALPUR TALUKA,
GULBARGA DISTRICT 585 108. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri./Smt : G.G.Chagashetty, Advocate )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED U/S 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.01.2012 IN O.A.NO. 176/2011
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CAT AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE -
C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PREMILINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this Writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, Union of India, Department of Posts, Chief Postal Master General, Karnataka Circle, Post Master General, North Karnataka Region, the Director of Accounts (Postal) and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, have all joined as petitioners and have arrayed one Sharanappa Dage sole respondent to get over the order dated 16th January 2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 116/2011. 3
2. Under the impugned order the respondent has been given the benefit of pension as admissible which had been denied to the respondent by the Writ Petitioners on the premise that the respondent had not put in requisite number of years of qualifying service.
3. The Tribunal on examination of facts and circumstances, opined otherwise and following observations contained in the judgement dated 17th June 2011 passed in similar Writ Petition No. 81669/2011 dismissing a like petition of the very petitioners with cost of `1,00,000/- and therefore it is not fit to allow the application before the Tribunal.
4. However, while granting relief, the Tribunal noticing that the respondent had superannuated retired from service on 30.06.2000 restricted arrears of pension to three years from the date of presentation of application before the Tribunal. This order is questioned in the Writ petition.
5. On behalf of Writ petitioners submission of Sri Prakash Kulkarni, learned counsel is that the respondent had been appointed on regular basis as Class-IV employee in the services of Postal Department only with effect from 21.07.1994 and 4 retired on 30.06.2011; that he had put in only 05 years 11 months 09 days of service as Group D employee and therefore he was not eligible for qualifying service; that the period of eligibility for pension is 10 years under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
6. It is also submitted by Sri Prakash Kulkarni, that the respondent though though he was serving even during earlier years as 'Dak Sevak', he was only extra department employee and that cannot be included as qualifying service etc.
7. In this view of the matter, irrespective of legal proceedings etc and as Tribunal had opined that the Respondent qualified for grant of pension as facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to interfere, particularly when the order is one granting pension to the Respondent who had served in different capacity for long period in the department.
8. There is no merit for interference in the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.
9. Writ Petition is dismissed imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioners payable to the respondent to be deposited within 5 four weeks from today before this Court and on such deposit Respondent is permitted to draw the same through his counsel.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *MK