Karnataka High Court
Sri C N Gangaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 19 October, 2020
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.30798/2018 (S - RES)
BETWEEN
SRI C.N.GANGAIAH
S/O LATE SRI NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSITANT MASTER,
SRIRAMA RESIDENTIAL HIGH SCHOOL,
TIPPEDASARAHALLI,
HALDODDERI POST,
TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT,
AND RESIDING AT BASAVAJYOTHI
KOTTANAHALLI NEW EXTENSION,
BEHIND VISHWABHARATI HIGH SCHOOL,
MALLASANDRA POST,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 224.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE (VIDEO
CONFERENCING))
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(SECONDARY EDUCATION),
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY
THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY.
2
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
5. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
KARNATAKA, P.B.NO.5329/5369,
PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 01.
6. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER
OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A & E)
KARNATAKA, P.B.NO.5329/5369,
PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 01.
7. SECRETARY
SRIRAMA EDUCATION SOCIETY (R)
MALLESHAPURA,KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 128.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.6.2018 SENT BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT AS WELL AS TO
THE PETITIONER, MARKED AT ANNEXURE-P, AS THE SAME
IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATIVE
OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the communication dated 19.06.2018 of the fourth respondent to the seventh respondent whereby pension that was sanctioned to the petitioner taking 33 years of qualifying service is reversed.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition are that:
Petitioner joined the services Sri Siddartha Residential High School, Kothanur, Bengaluru North Taluk as a Clerk cum Librarian with effect from 01.08.1978. The petitioner was appointed against a post already admitted to grant-in-aid. The petitioner worked in the said 4 institution up to 20.07.1987. On selection of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Social Science in the institution run by Srirama Education Society got himself relieved from the earlier institution and joined the seventh respondent on 21.07.1987.
3. At the time when the petitioner joined the school as Assistant Teacher, the post was yet to get itself admitted to grant-in-aid and with effect from 01.12.1989 the post that the petitioner was holding i.e., Assistant Teacher in Social Science was admitted to grant-in-aid.
4. The petitioner after rendering 33 years of service in the aforesaid school, retired from the seventh respondent on attaining the age of superannuation as Head Master on 31.08.2014. The fifth respondent Accountant General determined pension payable to the petitioner on 09.10.2014 by calculating qualifying service at 24 years as against 33 years that the petitioner had rendered.
5
5. Petitioner submitted a representation on 06.06.2016 to the seventh respondent to send a proposal to the Government to take into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner in the earlier institution as Clerk cum Librarian for determination of pension and other terminal benefits.
6. The proposal and the requisite information was sent to the fourth respondent Government to reckon the services rendered by the petitioner at Sri Siddartha Residential High School as Clerk cum Librarian.
7. On the proposal, the sixth respondent - office of the Accountant General passed an order on 04.10.2016 finalising pension payable to the petitioner reckoning qualifying service as 33 years 8 months and 20 days and fixed the petitioner pension at Rs.15,600/- per month with effect from 01.09.2016.
8. After passing of the said order, on the basis of the fourth respondent - Block Education Officer personally visiting the office of the fifth respondent, pursuant to 6 which, the said order of determination of pension at 33 years of service is rescinded on the ground that the petitioner had not resigned from his post at Siddhartha Residential High School to join the seventh respondent Institution. It was also held that the petitioner was not entitled to counting of past service in terms of Rule 9 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions etc.) Rules, 1999. It is this order that is called in question.
9. Heard Sri.Subramanya Bhat.M., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda, leaned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that he is entitled for reckoning of his past service at Siddartha Residential High School which was a grant-in-aid institution and the petitioner was working against a post admitted to grants and continued to work in another aided institution and in terms of Rule 52(a) of the Triple Benefit Scheme Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'TBS Rules' 7 for short), the past service has to be reckoned for the purposes of calculating qualifying service for pension.
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner had to resign from the earlier post to join the new post. Since the petitioner did not resign in the year 1987, the services that he rendered from 1978-87 cannot be reckoned for calculation of pension and therefore, would submit that the impugned order is in accordance with law.
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. Facts that are not in dispute are, the petitioner joined as a Clerk cum Librarian on 01.08.1978 against a post that was already admitted to grant-in-aid at Siddartha Residential High school and on his appointment as Assistant Teacher in the discipline of Social Science, left the earlier institution and joined the seventh respondent 8 with effect from 21.07.1987. The seventh respondent school was admitted to grant-in-aid after the petitioner joined the institution, with effect from 01.12.1989 and after completion of 24 years of service in the seventh respondent, petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2014.
14. The petitioner was initially sanctioned pension taking the service that he rendered in the seventh respondent institution alone leaving out the earlier service at Siddartha Residential High School. This can be gathered from the pension payment order - Annexure 'A'. It is thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 06.06.2016 through the proper channel namely, through the seventh respondent Institution. On 04.10.2016, the sixth respondent Accountant General passed an order finalizing the pension payable to the petitioner taking the qualifying service at 33 years and 8 months and 20 days accordingly, fixed the pension at Rs.15,600/- per month. This can be gathered from Annexure 'D'. It is thereafter, 9 the fifth respondent did a volte face by declining to sanction the pension on the ground that the fourth respondent has personally visited the office of the Accountant General and has stalled the consideration of payment by reckoning 33 years of service.
15. It is germane to notice, in the same order dated 16.11.2016 on the claim of revised pension, the fifth respondent - Accountant General has observed thus:
"A reference is invited to your letter dated 20/10/2016 wherein it is stated that this office has revised the pensionary benefits of Sri.C.N.GANGAIAH, Retired Assistant Master reckoning prior service rendered by the official in institutions under different management in a different cadre without the prior permission of the department.
1. In this connections, I am to state that as pre Rule 52(a) of TBS Rules, in computing length of qualifying service all previous service whether temporary, officiating or permanent either in one or more than one State Aided Institution shall be taken into account.10
2. The official is relieved as Library - Cum -
Assistant on 20/07/1987 (SR P23 VOL I) on getting high post under a different management.
3. The official has reported for duty as Assistant Master on 21/07/1987 at Sree Rama Residential High School, Thippe Dasara Halli, Tumakuru. It may be noted that there is no break in service. However, Sree Rama Residential High School, Tumakuru is admitted for Grant
- In - Aid from 01/12/1989. (Please See Rule 52(C))
4. Both the appointments are duly approved by the respective competent authorities.
5. The required TBS (Grant - In - Aid) certificates are recorded in Service Register and countersigned by the respective authorities, (See SR Page 10 to 21)."
16. Though, the fifth respondent accepts that both the services rendered by the petitioner were posts admitted to grant-in-aid and both the appointments were 11 duly approved by the competent authorities, the petitioner was entitled to reckon past service in terms of the TBS Rules. Rule 52(a) of the TBS Rules reads as follows:
"52(a): In computing the length of qualifying service all previous service whether temporary, officiating, or permanent, either in one or in more than one State Aided Institution shall be taken into account".
17. In terms of the afore-extracted TBS Rules which govern payment of pension to the petitioner in computing length of qualifying service, all previous service temporary or officiating either in one or more than one State Aided institutions shall be taken into consideration.
18. Payment of pension to the petitioner is governed by TBS Rules and not the aforesaid Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions etc.,) Rules, 1999. Petitioner has contributed towards the TBS scheme both in the earlier institution and in the seven respondent institution. Hence, in terms of the afore- quoted TBS Rules, the petitioner would be entitled to 12 reckoning of service that he had rendered in Siddartha Residential High School.
19. In the light of the mandate of Rule 52(a) of the TBS Rules, it was in accordance with law to grant pension to the petitioner taking 33 years as qualifying service including the past service that is rendered in another aided Educational institution. Therefore, there is no warrant to the Government to now turn down the claim of the petitioner on the score that the petitioner had not resigned in 1987 and joined the second institution-seventh respondent.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition merits acceptance and accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The communication dated 19.06.2018 of the fourth respondent vide Annexure 'P' is quashed.
(iii) A consequent direction is issued to the respondents to reckon the service rendered by the 13 petitioner from 01.08.1978 to 21.07.1987 for the purposes of calculation of pension, re-calculate the pension and other terminal benefits and make payment.
The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the respondents 2 to 6 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ