Karnataka High Court
Dr. T. Y. Mallaiah vs Mangaluru University on 18 December, 2018
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S. Dixit
W.P.NO.21799/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.21799 OF 2017 (S-RES)
Between:
Dr.T.Y.Mallaiah,
Aged about 59 years,
S/o. Late Talavar Yellappa,
Working as Deputy Librarian,
Mangaluru University,
Mangalagangothri,
Mangaluru-574 199. ... Petitioner
(By Smt. Suvarna.M.L, Advocate)
And:
1. Mangaluru University,
Mangalagangothri-574 199,
Represented by its Registrar.
2. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary to Government,
Education Department (Universities),
M.S.Buildings,
Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri.E.S.Indiresh, AGA for R2,
Sri.T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay,
Advocate for R1)
W.P.NO.21799/2017
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash
communication dated 8.6.2016 vide Annexure-M to
the Writ Petition issued by the respondent No.2 in so
far as it relates to the petitioner and communication
dated 11.5.2017 vide Annexure-T and continue his
services till he attains the age of 62 years i.e., the
superannuation age of teachers in the R-1 and grant
all consequential benefits.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the court made the following;
ORDER
Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and also learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submit that the subject matter of this writ petition is akin to the one in W.P.No.13051/2016 and connected writ petitions disposed of on 23/11/2018, wherein a limited relief has been granted to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the principle of parity submits that petitioner is also entitled to the similar relief in terms of paragraphs -
W.P.NO.21799/2017 38, 9 and 10 of the said judgment. The said paragraphs reads as under;
8.Learned Senior Counsel Shri. Prasanna expresses the apprehension that the salaries drawn by the petitioners for the service rendered by them after attaining the age of 60 years is threatened to be recovered and therefore some protection has to be given against the likely recovery. The learned Advocates opposing the writ petition submit that this apprehension is misconceived inasmuch as no such recovery can be made for the service rendered inasmuch as the contra action, if any, would be hit by doctrine of begar enacted under Article 23 of the Constitution of India i.e., taking the services without wages. This should put an end to the grievance of the petitioners in this regard.
9.The last contention of the petitioners that because of the pendency of these writ petitions, the terminal benefits of the petitioners even taking their age of retirement as 60 years have not been settled, needs to be addressed by the University. There cannot be denial of or delay in the settlement of terminal benefits to the employees who having rendered peaceful service have attained the age of superannuation. The pension not being a bounty is the property of the retirees and if there is a delay, the same needs to be deprecated vide judgment of the Apex Court W.P.NO.21799/2017 4 in the case of State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair AIR (1985) 1 SCC 429.
10.The decision of the Apex Court in the case of M. Padmanabhan Nair shows its anguish when persons who have peacefully retired from service are made to suffer because of delay in the settlement of terminal benefits. The observations of the Apex Court made decades ago should be an eye opener to the employers who fall within the definition of State under Article 12. Paras 3 and 5 of the said decision read as under:
"3.The instant case is a glaring instance of such culpable delay in the settlement of pension and gratuity claims due to the respondent who retired on 19.5.1973. His pension and gratuity were ultimately paid to him on 14.8.1975, i.e., more than two years and 3 months-after his retirement and hence after serving lawyer's notice he filed a suit mainly to recover interest by way of liquidated damages for delayed payment. The appellants put the blame on the respondent for delayed payment on the ground that he had not produced the requisite L.P.C. (Last Pay Certificate) from the Treasury Officer under Rule 185 of the Treasury Code. But on a plain reading of Rule 186, the High Court held and in our view rightly that a duty was cast on the Treasury Officer to grant to every retiring Government Servant the last pay certificate which in this case had been delayed by the concerned officer for which neither any justification nor explanation had been given. The claim for interest was, therefore, rightly, decreed in respondent's favour.W.P.NO.21799/2017 5
5.We are also of the view that the State Government is being rightly saddled with a liability for the culpable neglect in the discharge of his duty by the District Treasury Officer who delayed the issuance of the L.P.C. but since the concerned officer had not been impleaded as a party defendant to the suit the Court is unable to hold him liable for the decretal amount. It will, however, be for the State Government to consider whether the erring official should or should not be directed to compensate the Government the loss sustained by it by his culpable lapses. Such action if taken would help generate in the officials of the State Government a sense of duty towards the Government under whom they serve as also a sense of accountability to members of the public."
In the above circumstances, although the main relief sought for in the writ petitions as to the age of retirement is declined, the University is liable to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioners within an outer time limit of two months from the date a copy of this judgment is made available. The delay, if brooked, would entail the respondent-University with interest at the rate of 2% per mensum which after being paid to the petitioners shall be recoverable from the erring officials responsible for the delay.
Petitions are disposed off accordingly".
4. There is no reason to disbelieve this version there being no denial from the other side.
W.P.NO.21799/2017 65. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Msu