Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka And Anr. vs M.R. Shankar And Anr. on 7 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: ILR2005KAR1238, 2005(2)KARLJ188, 2005 LAB. I. C. 1711, 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 907, (2005) 2 KANT LJ 188, (2005) 1 KCCR 711, (2005) 7 SERVLR 11
Author: H.N. Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
JUDGMENT S.R. Nayak, J.
1. We are at a loss to understand why the appellants have come up with this writ appeal against a just order passed by the learned Single Judge. The few facts germane to the decision making are:
The 1st respondent having served as a Manager in the establishment of the 2nd respondent-Institute retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 18-12-1994. He served the Institute as Manager for the period from 28-10-1973 to 18-12-1994. After retirement, he made a representation to the Director, Directorate of Kannada and Culture-2nd appellant herein for extending pension and pensionary benefits to him in terms of Grant-in-Aid Code. His request was turned down by the 2nd appellant vide Endorsement dated 17-3-1999 marked as Annexure-D. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the 2nd appellant to consider his request, the 1st respondent filed Writ Petition No. 34512 of 1999 seeking quashing of Annexure-D and for a direction to the appellants herein to pay the retrial benefits to him. The writ petition was opposed by filing statement of objections. It was contended in the statement of objections that the petitioner's case is governed by separate set of Rules called in the Grant-in-Aid for Film Institutes in the State of Karnataka (Film Acting and Playback Singing) Rules and in terms of those Rules, he is not entitled to seek pension and pensionary benefits and that general rules of Grant-in-Aid which are applicable to other employees are not applicable to the employees working in the film institute. The learned Single Judge having taken note of the provision of Rule 6 of the Grant-in-Aid for Film Institutes in the State of Karnataka (Film Acting and Playback Singing) Rules, did not find merit in the contention raised by the appellants herein to refuse pensionary benefits to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and permitted the 1st respondent to make an application to the 2nd appellant seeking pensionary benefits and the 2nd appellant was directed to dispose of the same expeditiously.
2. We have heard the learned Government Advocate Sri Deshraj for the appellants; Smt. Sheela Krishna, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri S.V. Shastri, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the order of the learned Single Judge and the material papers appended to the writ appeal.
3. The order made by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable. It is true that a separate set of rules called the Grant-in-Aid for Film Institutes in the State of Karnataka (Film Acting and Playback Singing) Rules has been framed. Generally speaking, those rules are applicable to the employees working in the film institutes. But, Rule 6 of the said rules provide:
"6. The rules contained in this Code shall be treated as supplementary to the General Rules of expenditure and disbursement of Grant-in-Aid laid down in the Karnataka Financial Code and other Financial Manuals. Where the rules laid down in this Code appear to be inconsistent with the provisions of Karnataka Financial Code and the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the rules contained in the latter shall prevail".
Two things are quite apparent in Rule 6. Firstly, the rules contained in Grant-in-Aid for film institutes in the State are supplementary to the general rules of Grant-in-Aid Code laid down in the Karnataka Financial Code (KFC) and other Financial Manuals. Secondly, if there is any inconsistency or conflict between these rules framed for the film institutes and the rules governing Grant-in-Aid framed under the KFC and other Financial Manuals, the rules contained in Grant-in-Aid framed under the KFC and other Financial Manuals shall prevail over the rules framed for the film institutes. Therefore, if the Grant-in-Aid rules framed tinder the KFC and other Financial Manuals provide for pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent, undeniably, he is entitled to such benefits by force of Rule 6 of the Rules framed for film institutes. It is not the case of the appellants that the post held by the 1st respondent as Manager in the establishment of the 2nd respondent-Institute is not an aided post. If the post held by the 1st respondent was an aided post, it is trite, the 1st respondent is entitled to seek pensionary benefits. It is also not the case of the appellants that the Grant-in-Aid Code framed under the KFC and other Financial Manuals does not provide for pensionary benefits. Looking from any angle, we do not find any flaw in the order of the learned Single Judge. Writ appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
4. Before parting with this case, a submission made by Smt. Sheela Krishna, be noted. She told us that after the learned Single Judge passed the order, as permitted by the learned Single Judge, the 1st respondent has made an application to the 2nd appellant seeking pensionary benefits, but, due to pendency of the writ appeal no action is taken by the appellants. If that is so, since we have dismissed the writ appeal, the appellants shall dispose of the application with out any further loss of time at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and extend the pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Code framed under the KFC and other Financial Manuals.