Karnataka High Court
Sri K N Krishna Bhatt vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2021
Bench: S.Sujatha, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.40010/2018 (S - KSAT)
BETWEEN :
SRI K.N. KRISHNA BHATT,
S/O K.NARAYANA BHATT,
RETD. HEAD COOK,
AGED 75 YEARS, KPT. HOSTEL,
MANGALURU (D.K.),
NOW RESIDING AT BADDARALAKERE,
ANDARPOST,
VIA. AJEKAR,
KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA G.R., ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL,
EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
KARNATAKA POLYTECHNIC,
BENGALURU (D.K.)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.02.02.2018 IN
APPLICATION NO.6037/2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE
VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in Application No.6037/2016, dated 02.02.2018, passed by Karnataka State Administration Tribunal (for brevity 'KSAT'), by which order, even though the application of the petitioner is allowed in part, but it was directed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the interest on the delayed pension and the pensionary benefits only for two months -3- i.e., from the date 15.05.2015 to 15.07.2015. Therefore, being aggrieved by the grant of interest for the delayed pensionary benefits only for two months the applicant has preferred the present writ petition.
Brief facts:
2. The petitioner was appointed as Head Cook on 31.01.1981, in the Government Polytechnic Hostel, Mangalore. The petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1995, thus the petitioner has rendered a total service of fifteen years.
But the respondents have not sanctioned admissible pensionary benefits to the petitioner, for the reason that while he was in service, the salary was paid out of 'Contingency Funds' in the Office and as such pension is not sanctioned. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the KSAT in Application No.327/2006 and the KSAT by the order dated 11.07.2011, praying for counting his past service, which was denied to him for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
-4-
3. Thereafter, KSAT passed an order directing the respondents to the regularize service of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. The said order passed in Application No.327/2006, dated 11.07.2007 was challenged by the respondents before this Court in Writ Petition No.26551/2012 and this Court had dismissed the said writ petition on 05.06.2013. Therefore, the second respondent issued an order dated 03.03.2015, considering the petitioners services from 31.01.1981 to 01.02.1991, for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits, as a special case, but no interest was granted for the delayed period for the purpose pensionary benefits.
4. As per the order dated 03.03.2015, the respondents have sanctioned for payment of pensionary benefits due to petitioner and the petitioner had received pensionary benefits due to him from 31.07.2015, vide the order dated 15.07.2015 from the Accountant General. Therefore, even though the petitioner has retired from -5- service on 30.06.1995, on attaining the age of superannuation but he received pensionary benefits only on 15.07.2015, and thus there is a delay of 20 years in granting the pensionary benefits. But for this delayed period of twenty years, interest was not sanctioned and paid.
5. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the KSAT by filing the application No.6037/2016, the KSAT by the order dated 02.02.2018 has ordered for payment of interest only for the period of two months i.e., from the date 15.05.2015 to 15.07.2015, even though as per the records there is a delay of 20 years in sanctioning the pension. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the KSAT in this writ petition, in so far as, for granting interest for two months, but not for twenty years.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had rendered service as Head Cook for a period of 15 years from -6- 31.01.1981 to 30.05.1995, but the respondents have sanctioned pensionary benefits on 15.07.2015. Therefore, there is a delay of 20 years thus the respondents ought to have sanctioned interest for twenty years delayed period and when the respondents have not sanctioned interest for this delayed period of 20 years, the petitioner approached KSAT but the KSAT has committed error by granting interest for the period of two months only. Therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition by issuing directions to the respondents to pay interest for a period of 20 years.
7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the KSAT is justifiable, granting the interest for two months i.e., from 15.05.2015 to 15.07.2015 for a period of two months, needs no interference.
8. Further, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the order passed by the KSAT in Application No.327/2006, dated 11.07.2011, was challenged in a writ -7- petition before this court in W.P.No.26551/2012 and the said writ petition was dismissed against which a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.2797/2015, and the said SLP came to be dismissed on 16.03.2015. Therefore, the pensionary benefits to the petitioner was granted within a period of three months from the date of the order passed in SLP. Therefore, the respondents are right in granting interest from 15.05.2015 to 15.07.2015, i.e., after dismissal of the SLP, the interest was sanctioned. Hence, submitted during the pendency of the writ petition and the SLP before the Apex Court, the petitioner was not entitled for interest and considering this, the KSAT has rightly passed order granting interest only for the period of two months, which needs no interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition as being devoid of merits.
9. Upon considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the -8- respondents, the point that arise for consideration is as follows:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for interest for a period of twenty years from the date of retirement on attaining age of superannuation i.e., from 30.06.1995 till the order dated 15.07.2015, on which date the pension sanction order was passed?"
10. The chronological events of the service of the petitioner is not disputed. The petitioner was appointed as a Head Cook on 31.01.1981, vide Annexure-A1. Respondent No.2 has passed order regularizing the services of the petitioner on 03.03.2015, pursuant to the direction issued by the KSAT, by this Court and also when the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent was dismissed, then the second respondent had passed order regularizing the services of the petitioner, including the services rendered from the date of the appointment i.e., from 31.03.1981 till 01.02.1991, on which date reckoned the petitioner's services and also ordered that the -9- petitioner is entitled for pension and other consequential service and mandatory benefits.
11. When this being the fact, the petitioner services was regularized and he was held entitled for the benefit of pension w.e.f. 31.01.1981 till date of retirement i.e., on 30.06.1995. Therefore, when this being the order of the respondent, the Accountant General, Bengaluru as per Annexure-A3 had observed that the petitioner had put net qualifying of 14 years, 4 months and 29 days. It is also reckoned that the date of appointment of the petitioner as 31.01.1981 and date of retirement 30.06.1995. Therefore, the net qualifying services of the petitioner is 14 years, 4 months and 29 days. When this is the chronological events of the services particulars of the petitioner and also the respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 03.03.2015, that the petitioner is entitled for pension and other service and monetary benefits, w.e.f. 31.01.1981 till date of retirement on 30.06.1995, the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.07.1995. But the
- 10 -
respondents have sanctioned pensionary benefits with effect from the month of July'2015.
12. The reasons assigned by the respondent for settling the pension from the month of July' 2015 is that the respondents have challenged the order passed by the KSAT, order passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 2797/2015 and the said SLP was dismissed on 16.02.2015 and it was ordered to settle the pensionary benefits within a period three months i.e., before 15.05.2015. Accordingly, from July' 2015 after two months delay, the pension of the petitioner was settled. Hence, made an endeavor to justify the settlement of pension from the month July'2015. This contention of the respondent-State cannot be accepted and is unjustified for the reason that the petitioner had retired from services on 30.06.1995. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits from the next date of retirement onwards. No interest could be denied by the respondent - State on the said pensionary benefits. It is well settled law
- 11 -
that while granting and settling the pensionary benefits, no period spent for litigation could be excluded. Therefore, the reason assigned by the respondent in not settling and granting pensionary benefits for a period of twenty years is wholly, arbitrary, unjustified and illegal, for this the petitioner be compensated by way of interest to be paid on delayed period of twenty years.
13. The contention of the respondent that there is only delay of two months in granting and settling the pension and thus the petitioner is entitled for interest only for two months and that is rightly considered by the KSAT, cannot be accepted. In this regard, KSAT has also committed error in not appreciating the chronological events of the services of the petitioner. The respondent- State might have spent some considerable years in the litigation in challenging the order passed by the KSAT and by this Court, which have passed the order to sanction the pension but this period cannot be excluded for sanctioning while settling and granting pensionary benefits to the
- 12 -
petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any merits absolutely in the arguments canvassed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.
14. The KSAT also considering the chronological events of the services of the petitioner as discussed above, has wrongly granted interest only for the period of two months from 15.05.2015 to 15.07.2015. The KSAT has also erroneously held that after the dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pension, but is not tenable besides illegal. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the interest for the period of 20 years w.e.f. 01.07.1995.
15. When the order passed by the second respondent regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.1981 who retired from the services on 30.06.1995, had put in net qualifying services for a period of 14 years, 4 months and 29 days and after the retirement, w.e.f. 01.07.1995, the petitioner is entitled for the pension. But the pension was settled and granted from the month of
- 13 -
July'2015 i.e., after twenty years. Therefore, for this 20 years delay, the petitioner is entitled for interest applicable as per law. The respondents have issued an order dated 21.08.2003, as per Annexure-A4(c) granting interest on the delayed date of pensionary benefits by fixing at 8% per annum. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate 8% per annum for period of twenty years delay as discussed above.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition succeeds and the order passed by the KSAT, so far as granting interest only for a period of two months i.e., 15.05.2015 to 15.07.2015 is hereby set-aside by confirming the rest of the observations in the order. Therefore, it is ordered that the petitioner is entitled for the interest for the delayed period of twenty years from 01.07.1995, till the date settling the pension. Accordingly, we answer the point for consideration in Affirmative. Therefore, we pass the following:
- 14 -
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The petitioner is entitled to interest on the delay pension and pensionary benefits for the delayed period of twenty years i.e., from 01.07.1995 till the date of settling the pension i.e., 15.05.2015 at the rate of 8% per annum.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JJ