Karnataka High Court
Smt Manjamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 315* DAV or MAY, aogpoe BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JusT;:cE MOHZAN sHAN~TANTAso:uoAgT ; WRIT PETITION NoE.1aa73 oE2ok1oa(s~+g§_E§,) A BETWEEN : Smt. Manjamma W/o Putte Gowda ._ . Aged about 60 years ' Working as Road Eleainerf V . at Kukke Slfi 1-Sub7r'a_mar'sya;_ Swam_y_ TTe_rf1w;)_!"e,;»*$_ubu'afn.a'r;ya ._ V 1 V Sulia ;V'Tatuk;TT[e}f_K. E)4istr¢iCt.,' . ..Petitioner (By srA'e-Ax.s*.».% 'Mahe%érT.ai;eA:m§ % 1j'T'--1;'he"eStat:e ofkafhataka " ~ Rep 'ivy « ite . Secretary D'e.;§'a.rtme~r3t..of Religious '*--Endou'z"meTnts (Revenue) A -._M.S..~ ~8_t;:4j'i.-iciing 't}afigatVore~S6O 001. AA;/.;*~..(:oH1missioner for Hindu " Religious and Charitabte Endowments, Chamarajpet 8anga|ore--56O 018. 3. Kukke Subramanya Swamy Temple Subramanya, Sulia Taluk Dakshina Kannada District By its Executive Officer. ..Re's.eo.ne.en'ts= (By Sri Jagadeesh Mundargi, AG£if,Wfo'r «_R_1':,& Smt. Vaishali Hegde, Adv., for R3.) ' ' " This Writ petition is fiietci«--s,;ndef'Aittieies»'2'f£.6v.and 1 the Constitution of India. pieyiiag to quash"_theV inipugned order vide Annexure--B dated pass-sci by the R3. This writ petition. i'or'pfeliminary hearing in B~Group, this day the Court niade the---fo1ioufing :- The._Vpe:_t":'t§'on"er as a Road Cleaner on E__n::A3~tVhe::Vti1:'§vrdresoondent, a tempie, falling withinthedefi.n:tEAor§°of"'tne term 'Religious Institution' ung;j"eI't..sut$«-sectitoniv"(i5) of Section 6 of the Madras 1Hindi}t?Re:|4v§g.ivous and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 e("Efi.e're'inVa'_ftet"'referred to as the 'Madras HRCE5 Act') r/w Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments it Rts«lesV"(here§nafter referred to as the 'Madras HRCE Rules'). La 2. According to the petitioner, the Government in exercise of power under Section 100 (2) (.y'){f0--f_;'th'e Madras HRCE Act to frame rules governing of service amongst other"~--qua,|ifi_ca'tiio_n§-.T.fo~r employment in temples issued1'«.G:L'O_,l\4Si'i\io."S.8i4it Welfare cit.28.05.1952 fixingjthe than it 25 and not more tha'ij~..,_65 anvvloflfxice in the temple. The the date of appointment',"";:t,h'e entitled the petitioneril he attains the age the lvladras HRCE Act, stood repealeldiiion force of the Karnataka HiifilL_1;t.l'V Religtiiotis Institutions and Charitable 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Amati-tiaitaiitaiitiizice Act') with effect from 01.05.2003, nevéertheless the repeal and savings in Section 78 VA 'i~:lf"pro'vi.des for application of Section 6, 8 and 24 of the V' lifarnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 thus, saving the /"S A4- condition of service provided under the old Act. It is the further contention of the petitioner that ytl*ie:"new Act introduced a new classification of Indoor and Outdoor Servants,.provid_«in'g"*«.tne'V""age superannuation as 65 ye;arsi;'_'_'ir~and'~.'"60 §yi'ea'ifs:,. respectively. It is the a|leg:_éitiV_on of the_petitioner: thatch admittedly he held ,.the postV:..'of°¥2o'ad' "Ciie.anver in the tempie entitled to on attaining 65 years of Madras HRCE Rules, respondent without
notice dt.02.05.201O petitioner that he would s.taiperannVuvate:d on attaining the age of 60 years »A 3 Hence this writ petition.
it 3..-~l§eti'tion is opposed by the third respondent gingterzalia admitting the fact that the petitioner was "*i,appointed as a Road Cleaner, being an "outdoor V» ,5"
servant", was liable to retire on attaining the age of 60 years in terms of Rule 11(2) of the Kavtrnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Rules, 2002 (herieigngafter"referred: to the 'Karnataka HRICE Ru|esv"-,3, contended that though andiBulges,_'Avvg,we...grtruckwrt' down as ultra viresthe '"ofv..,In.d§ia, by a Division Bench Writ Appeai M3440/zoosfirispegeetiier v,e't{rne8;ojif%,§Q2006, the state having the Apex Court, by another order dated
12.O7.A2OQ'7 no adverse/punitive action 'be tak'e'n..V:vvith: regard to the retirement age of t ;éi'rcha.lras'«ah«d___indoor temple servants till further orders H ".-4V__,'1~The learned counsel for the petitioner while 'poirsting out to the retirement age prescribed in the /V'
-(,m Madras HCRE Rules, contends that it was saved by the application of Sections 6, 8 and 24 of the Ka'r.njat'al§a General Clauses Act, 1899 as provided for 78 of the Karnataka HRICE :to.j'i~th'e A learned counsel, the age of su:p.era.nnuation"vosF indoor, and outdoor servant of a"'ternple as._V_p'ro'vid"ed"Vin the Karnataka HRICE AlfiusiestilsgA:Rappvlicabie'Alton persons appointed after the the Karnataka HRICE Act" by the conditions._gfii.U_s§§:rvtVc§ HRCE Act and Ru ies:,_
5. Smt.'\/aViVs--ha~l--.i%"learned counsel for the third resp'on_dent teVr'n"pi'eV seeks to sustain the order being fully justified and not calling for inte_rfevrencfe;l The learned counsel points out: sub-rule (2) awe 11 of the Karnataka HRICE Rules to it 'contend that the petitioner being an outdoor servant [it/> -7- was bound to retire from service on 31.05.2010 on reaching 60 years of age.
6. Having heard the learned counsel"~for:__j:the_ parties, examined the provisionsof |aw"'notii'cedirsupra,"
there is no dispute that the p'etit'i'_or:;er'is. apfpointimeinjt to a post in the 3" res'p.o:n~dentA"te_mple-,:Ainine'°year-it 1967 was governedi----.by servi..cf_e °co_ndi'tlo'ns set out in Rule 4 (2) of the framed under Section 100. VIVHRCE Act more appropria'tel'y"'.p're'scri'b.i'nrj'the 'age of entry into service as 2t?~._years of retirement as 65 years. The Madlrias*HR'CE~.._Ru'l'es did not make a distinction air-'nonggyst».employ'ees, or classify employees as indoor except to state that a person maiwy office in the temple provided he is not less 't._h__an 25 years and not more than 65 years of age. '*E"--hti--s, as on the date of petitioner's entry into service, l/~ -3- the condition of service governing retirement entitled him to continue in service until 65 years of ag.e,r»-._"i..,_
7. On the coming into force of HRICE Act with effect from,»..0.1,DS_,'2UVlJ§,,jV.4a.rid_'_}_ti'1euV"
Ka rn ata ka H RICE Rules with e"ffec_tl "fro undoubtedly the employees» are"?
classified as indoor-and yo'u'tdnoo'r""t.s_ervan't's,"and Rule 11(2) prescribes 65 years retirement for indoor servan't,._:.'and=__ 60--::~'yea'rs'--]"fdr,,V.T'outdoor servant. Sub.S,ec---.V(2AV)~~o'f;t3eCtiori78xofithe Karnataka HRICE Act, repeais the and Rules while the proviso einsiuresgaoi3_|i'ica'ibi|ity of Sections 6, 8 and 24 of thve'§"iKair:natAakaCetntelral Clauses Act, 1899. The nature »vc4li'is:C'i'},arged by the petitioner, classify him as aAii..y4:_out.d.o:oif'servant, according to the 3" respondent, yvghich-..ii't my opinion is a pure question of fact, for it =.cie--te«rmination after a full fledged trial. it/\
8. Sections 6, 8 and 24 of the Karnataka General Ciauses Act, 1899 provides for: (i) effect of repe:a'«!y:;V"'{vvi4i) construction of reference to repealed enactmegnts
(iii) continuation of orders-,--ietC. is.stjeCi_ xu.ndx'e--r A enactments repeaied and re?'en'ac_ted,"V_respecti:.ve.|:y'.~, Thus by the aPD|ication of"'th'e.afoV.re'sai'djhrsroviisiioins of' the Genera! Ciauses~.Act,_r'V't'h'evt~:'iyrVe'»pea| Madras HRCE Act and Ruies priviiege, obiigation or incurred under the wIn other words, the Act by the Karnataka HRICEAdid: not Jannul, abridge or modify the peti_tioriAer's conditioris of service under the Madras his detriment, but was saved entitling hEgn1--,i'to'cojntisn'ue in service under the respondent No.3 temkplehttivntii attaining 65 years of age. Even A V~Iif"oth'e~Arwise the repeaiing enactment is not shown to ' have expressly annuiied the service conditions under in W |{}v the Madras HRCE Rules, and substituted by Rule 11(2) of the Karnataka HRICE Rules. Merely because".a"'nVew classification of employees into indoor servants is introduced by the Karnataka'"HRiCE'¥lc't.,anvd"" 2 Rules, it does not imply that the c'onclitii*on's:'oF:"s,ery'i?:e of the employees, appointeéi_undAer:__theV F-IRCE-R' Act and Rules, stand.subs,t-ituted',~~..reducing the age of superannuation of 'outdoolra..s'e}"vaAnvts_»iifrom 65 years to 60 years, wihiie; r_'-eta,ningjtheyllagjeVyoflfstiperannuation of 65 years For _VYi*n_do:e.r, S'eTrjv,a V in theclfiurnystajnyces, the order dt.O2.05.2010 Annexurei-'Bi " of respondent No.3 informing the De,tii;io_n:ei=vi.thatillhewvvould retire on attaining 60 years of 'age' is contrary to the conditions of se--!i_yice~ the Madras HRCE Act and Rules entitling ,hi_m tocontinue in service until attaining the age of 65 R ,years.
i» sue
10. In the resLHt théslwrk pettkan deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The order dtO2.05.201O Annexure~8 ofthe thwd respondefitls quashed.
*ek/--