Karnataka High Court
C G Math M.A. Ll.B vs The Principal Secretary To Government ... on 23 July, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF JULY, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. KEMPANNA
WA NO. 30054/2012 (S)
BETWEEN:
C.G.MATH, M.A. LLB (RETD.,)
AGED 74 YEARS
RTD. PRINCIPAL & ADVOCATE
SUSHREEM PLOT NO.78
JAYANAGAR (NEAR BHARAKOTRI)
SHIVAGIRI
DHARWAD - 580 007. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.C.G.MATH, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT
GENERAL ( A & E) KARNATAKA
BANGALORE, PARK HOUSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
3. THE COMMISSIONER
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 1.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH WODEYAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2011 DISMISSING WRIT PETITION
NO.62404/2009 (SR.) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The appellant has preferred this writ appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.62404/2009 dated 23.11.2011, wherein his request for payment of interest for the delayed payment of revised pension in terms of the UGC pay scale has been rejected.
2. The appellant was working as Principal in aided college at Basaveshwara Arts Collage, Bagalkot. -3- He retired from service on 31 s t May, 1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. Within a period of one month from the date of his retirement i.e. on 28 t h May, 1996, his pension was settled. After such settlement, the Government of Karnataka by a notification dated 15.11.1999 extended the UGC pay scale to the teachers in aided institutions with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996. However, they did not give revision of pension based on the revision pay scale to the teachers, who had retired by that time. The dispute ultimately reached the Apex Court and a direction was issued to extend the benefit of the UGC pay scale to the petitioner also. The arrears of pension were paid after revising the same.
3. It is the case of the appellant that as there was a delay in settlement of the said arrears of pension, according to the revised pay scale, he is entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount. Therefore, he gave a representation to the Government seeking for interest. It was rejected. He -4- challenged the same before this Court and this Court issued a direction to the Government to consider his representation. Thereafter, his representation was considered and again his claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred a Writ Petition No.62404/2009 before this Court. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has approached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1389/2006 and when it came to be allowed on 12.05.2006 directing the Government to extend the revised pension with effect from 1996, it did not direct the Government to pay the interest on the arrears of pension. In fact, the question whether the petitioner/appellant was entitled to such revised pension was pending before the Courts from 2000- 2006. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the matter, amount has been paid. Therefore, he is not entitled to any interest on the arrears of the revised -5- pension. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.
4. Appellant is party-in-person. He submits that for no fault of his, revised pay scale and consequent benefits were not extended to him, he had to fight for justice by approaching the Apex Court. There is delay of 6 years in settlement of the said arrears and therefore, he is entitled to the interest on the delayed arrears on the said payment.
5. Once the benefit of the revised pay scale and consequential benefits in pension were denied to him by the authorities, he has agitated the matter before this Court and Apex Court. Whe n he claimed arrears, he did not claim the arrears with interest, which could have been done. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed to give payment. He did not say he should be paid interest. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge committed any illegality in -6- declining his request for interest. In that view of the matter, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge, which calls for interference. No merits. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE SA/-