Karnataka High Court
Ms.Nageena Begum vs The State Of Karanataka on 9 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:32093
WP No. 7002 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 7002 OF 2014 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MS. NAGEENA BEGUM
D/O LATE MOHAMMED HAYATH SAB
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS PROCESS SERVER
CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION AND JMFC,
GUBBI-572 201,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
SUMA RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE-560001.
KARNATAKA
3. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-571101
4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,
TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-571101.
5. THE PRESIDING OFFICER
CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION AND JMFC
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:32093
WP No. 7002 of 2014
GUBBI-572201,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATHRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.2 TO 5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS AND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.FD (SPL) 04 PET 2005,
BANGALORE DATED 31.03.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-H WHICH IS
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF
MIND AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
i) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Order bearing FD (SPL) 04 PET 2005, BANGALORE, dated 31.03.2006 which is produced and marked as Annexure-H, which is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, without application of mind.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:32093 WP No. 7002 of 2014
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, in the nature of Order or direction, directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner to extend the benefit of Scheme of Pension, since the selection and appointment to the Post of Process Server dated 28.06.2006 was pursuant to the Notification dated 10.01.2005 and as on the date of said Notification the Scheme of Pension was in force and the said Scheme was prevalent till 31.03.2006 and ceased with effect from 01.04.2006, but because of the procedural delay caused by the Respondents her appointment was issued after the cut-off date of 31.03.2006 fixed to claim the benefit of Scheme of Pension, which is contrary to the provisions of law as well as Service Jurisprudence, in the interest of justice and equity.
iii) To, declare that non extension of benefit of Scheme of Pension to this Petitioner who was appointed as Process Server vide Order dated 28.06.2006, pursuant to the Notification dated 10.01.2005 and the said benefit was extended to other Category of Post who are appointed pursuant to the Notification dated 10.01.2005, which is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and without application of mind produced and marked as Annexure-G."
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:32093 WP No. 7002 of 2014
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for the post of Process Server pursuant to the notification dated 10.01.2005 issued by the respondent No.3 and on selection, she joined the services of the District Judiciary as a Process Server on 28.06.2006. She contends that though the recruitment process for the post of Typist was completed and an order of appointment was issued on 01.08.2005, the process of selection and appointment to the post of Process Server was delayed. The petitioner contends that from 01.04.2006, National Pension Scheme was rolled out as a result of which, the petitioner had to make contribution to the National Pension Scheme. The petitioner after declaration of her probationary period, made a request to the respondents to consider her claim for Old Defined Pension Scheme as the recruitment to the post of Process Server was complete even before the National Pension Scheme came into force.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and prays that the petitioner be granted the benefit of the Old Defined Pension Scheme. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:32093 WP No. 7002 of 2014
4. This petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4, who contends that by the time the petitioner reported to duty, National Pension Scheme was already in force and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the State Government has now issued a Government Order dated 24.01.2024 applying the Old Defined Pension Scheme to its employees subject to the conditions specified therein. He therefore contends that since the petitioner had applied to the post of Process Server in furtherance of the notification dated 10.01.2005 i.e., prior to 01.04.2006 and was appointed later, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Old Defined Pension Scheme.
6. In view of the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.
7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the respondent No.3 to consider her case to extend the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:32093 WP No. 7002 of 2014 benefit of old Defined Pension Scheme in the light of the Government Order dated 24.01.2024. If a request is made, respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5