Karnataka High Court
Y.N.Jagannath vs State Of Karnataka on 6 September, 2017
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.37488/2014(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Y.N. JAGANNATH,
S/O Y.V. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT VRUDDHINILAYA,
NO.13, 6TH A CROSS,
TALAKAVERI LAYOUT,
AMRUTHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560092.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKSHITH JOISH, ADVOCATE ON
BEHALF OF SRI T. N. RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
6TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E)
OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
P.B.NO.5369, PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION,
PRE-UNIVERSITY BUILDING,
3RD FLOOR, 18TH CROSS,
2
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560003.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
...
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.6.13, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-E, IS ILLEGAL & QUASH THE SAME AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who was appointed as Lecturer in Sericulture, is before this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 19.6.2013 in No. PV9/2/1013031716/2091322069/B as per Annexure-E in so far as it denies his benefits of post service with effect from 11.2.1980 till 1.7.1994 as per Annexure-E and to direct the respondent No.2 to pay his pensionary benefits taking into consideration prior service i.e., from 11.2.1980 as reckoning date for fixation of pay, leave for the purpose of pensionary benefits as against 1.7.1994. 3
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Lecturer in Sericulture in Acharya Junior College, Gowribidanur on 20.3.1980 and subsequently, his services came to be regularized by a Government Order dated 18.2.1995 with effect from 1.7.1994 along with 94 persons and he retired from service on 30.3.2013. Thereafter, he filed an application for pensionary benefits. The 2nd respondent issued an endorsement on 19.6.2013 with regard to his finalization of pension claims stating that his net qualifying service is 18 years 9 months and hence, he was entitled to the pensionary benefits of Rs.3,44,850/- towards DCRG and Rs.10,890/- towards family pension, etc. Therefore, he is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. The respondent State Government filed its objections and contended that the service of the petitioner came to be regularized in the first batch on 4 18.2.1995 and financial benefits were given with effect from 1.7.1994. Pre-condition No.6 laid down in the appointment order is that the petitioner is eligible for pension and leave benefits from the date he enters into service. It is further contended that in terms of the Government Order dated 18.2.1995, service of the petitioner was reckoned only from 1.7.1994. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has reckoned the qualifying service from 1.7.1994 as per condition No.5 and accordingly, finalized the pension claims. It is further clarified by the Government Order dated 1.4.2006 and Gazette Notification dated 12.2.2014, that the benefits are not available for service rendered during the unaided period for the purpose of pay, leave and pension or any other service benefits by the Government. Therefore, it is contended that the claim made by the petitioner for pensionary benefits is devoid of merits and is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Rakshith Joish, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned endorsement fixing the pension for the net qualifying service of the petitioner as 18 years 9 months is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further contended that the service of the petitioner came to be regularized by the Government Order dated 18th February 1995 with effect from 1.7.1994. At condition No.6 it is specifically stated that the service rendered by the petitioner prior to regularization shall be considered for leave and pensionary benefits, but unfortunately, the 2nd respondent has not considered the said condition before fixing the pensionary benefits as per Annexure-E. He further contended that the 3rd respondent-Deputy Director of Vocational Education, Chikkaballapur District has addressed to the 2nd respondent that the 6 petitioner is entitled to the increment and other benefits as well as pension with effect from 11.2.1980 after the impugned order is passed by the 2nd respondent. The same has not been considered by the 2nd respondent till today. Therefore, he sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the pensionary benefits taking into consideration the prior service of the petitioner from 11.2.1980 as against 1.7.1994 as reckoning date for fixing of pay, leave for the purpose of pensionary benefits by allowing the present writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate while justifying the impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent contended that though service of the petitioner came to be regularized by the Government Order dated 18.2.1995, condition No.6 in the appointment order states that the petitioner is eligible for pension and leave benefits from the date of his 7 regularization into service. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 20.3.1980 in Sericulture in Acharya Junior College, Gowribidanur and thereafter, by the Government Order 18.2.1995, his services came to be regularized with effect from 1.7.1994 along with 94 others. In the Government Order dated 18th February, 1995, condition No.6 specifically states that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of previous service pension and leave benefits which reads as under:
"¸ÀPª Àæ ÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ »A¢£À ¸ÉêÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀeÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦AZÀt ¸Ë®¨sÀåPÉÌ ¥ÀjUÀt¸  ÀĪÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉƼÀ¥q À ÀĪÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ."
8. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 19.6.2013, the 8 3rd respondent - Deputy of Vocational Education has reckoned the 2nd respondent to take the service of the petitioner's from 11.2.1980 for fixing of increment and other benefits including pension. Inspite of the same, till today, the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders. Though the State Government has filed objections contending that condition No.6 laid down in the appointment order states that the petitioner is eligible for pension and leave benefits from the date of his regularization into service, the same is contrary to the very Government Order dated 18.2.1995. Condition No.5 also states that the petitioner is entitled to the basic pay from the year 1994 which is interpreted by the respondents fixing his qualifying service as 18 years 9 months ignoring the very condition imposed by the State Government at the time of regularization on 18.2.1995 and the 2nd respondent has not considered even the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent- Director of Pre-University and Professional Education, 9 dated 21.9.2013 vide Annexure-J and also Annexure-K dated 24.3.2015 filed along with memo to the Principal Secretary to the Government. Inspite of the same, the respondent-Government has filed the statement of objections on 2.2.2016 ignoring the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent as well as the State Government that the petitioner is entitled to the leave and pensionary benefits from 11.2.1980 in terms of the order passed by the State Government as per condition No.6. Therefore the matter requires re-consideration by the 2nd respondent and to pass fresh orders taking into consideration condition No.6 imposed in the Government Order dated 18.2.1995 as well as the recommendation made by the Deputy Director as per Annexures-J and K.
9. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 19.6.2013 in so far as not considering the previous service 10 rendered with effect from 11.2.1980 reckoning the date for fixation of pay, leave for the purpose of pensionary benefits is quashed. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent to re-consider the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-J dated 21.9.2013, Annexure-K dated 24.3.2015 and the Government Notification dated 18.2.1995 vide Annexure-C especially condition No.6 and pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-