Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Sri Yellappa on 25 April, 2013
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT
GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
WRIT PETITION No.4660 OF 2008 (C-CAT)
BETWEEN
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY
DEPT OF POSTS
DAK BHAVAN
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
KARNATAKA CIRCLE
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001.
3. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
NORTH KARNATAKA REGION
DHARWAD - 585 101.
4. THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF
POST OFFICE
GULBARGA DIVISION
GULBARGA.
5. THE INSPECTOR OF POSTS
SHORAPUR SUB DIVISION
SHORAPUR - 585 224
.. PETITIONERS
(By Smt : ARCHANA P TIWARI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. SRI YELLAPPA
Age: 45
S/O. JUMNAPPA
AGED 45 YEARS
EX-EDDA, HEREMUNDKUR BO
A/W KEMBHAVI SO
SHORAPUR TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
a) MALLAMMA
W/O LATE YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT EX-EDDA
HEREMUNDKUR BO
A/W KEMBHAVI SO
SHORAPUR TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT
NOW YADGIR DISTRICT
b) ERAMMA
D/O LATE YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT EX-EDDA
HEREMUNDKUR BO
A/W KEMBHAVI SO
SHORAPUR TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT
NOW YADGIR DISTRICT
c) CHANDAPPA
S/O. LATE YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT EX-EDDA
HEREMUNDKUR BO
A/W KEMBHAVI SO
SHORAPUR TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT
NOW YADGIR DISTRICT
d) HUCHCHAPPA
S/O LATE YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT YEARS
RESIDING AT EX-EDDA
HEREMUNDKUR BO
3
A/W KEMBHAVI SO
SHORAPUR TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT
NOW YADGIR DISTRICT
e) HUSSAINAPPA
S/O LATE YELLAPPA
AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT EX-EDDA
HEREMUNDKUR BO
A/W KEMBHAVI SO
SHORAPUR TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. I R BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 (A TO E)
THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.
30.1.2008 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE BENCH IN O.A.NO.100/2007 AVAILABLE AS AT
ANNEXURE-A.
This Petition coming on for hearing, this day,
K. SREEDHAR RAO J, made the following:-
ORDER
The respondent was a extra-departmental agent in the department of postal services. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary enquiry and was 'put off' from the duty with effect from 08.02.1994. In the domestic enquiry, it is held that the charge of misappropriation is proved and he was dismissed from service.
2. The respondent challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore. The order 4 was set aside and denovo enquiry was directed. In the denovo enquiry also, the charges are held to be proved and the respondent is dismissed from service.
3. In this petition, the short question is whether the petitioner is entitled to 'put off duty' allowance. The service rules in the year 1994 do not provide for payment of 'put off duty' allowance to an employee who is facing enquiry. In the year 1997, the rules were amended and provision was incorporated vide fundamental rule 9 to pay put off allowance at the rate of 25% of the basic allowances and 25% of the D.A. If the period of put off duty is more than 90 days, the delinquent shall be payable 50% of the basic allowance and 50% of the D.A. The Rule further came to be amended in the year 2003 where under all the delinquent irrespective of the period in which they are put off from the duty, were declared to be entitled to put off duty allowance. The respondent has been paid put off duty allowance from 2003 onwards till his dismissal after de-novo enquiry. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to put off duty allowance from the year 1994 to 2003. The fundamental rules came to be amended in the year 1997. Earlier to that, there is no provision for payment of put 5 off duty allowance. It is the contention of the petitioner that fundamental amended rules 1997 is not retrospective and does not affect to the persons to entitle put off duty allowance after the amendment rules. The contention of the petitioner appears to be untenable. Though the service rules in the year 1994 do not provide for payment of 'put off duty' allowance to an employee who is facing enquiry, but in the year 1997, the rules were amended and provision was incorporated vide fundamental rule 9 to pay put off allowance and by amendment of rule in the year 2003, the respondent would be entitled for put off duty allowance from 1997 till the second amendment to rule in the year 2003. Therefore, the respondent would be entitled for put off duty allowance from 1997 to 2003. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE