Allowed

K Basalingappa S/O. Late Rudrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2013WP/67763/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to recover back wages for a petitioner reinstated after premature retirement at age 58, citing Higher intervention. The court held that the petitioner fell under the first category requiring full back wages. Directed payment of backlog salary.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 directed to pay back wages to petitioner for period from 01.08.2008 to 04.04.2010.

K Basalingappa S/O. Late Rudrappa Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.67763/2011 [S-RES]

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K BASALINGAPPA S/O. LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, GANDHINAGAR, 2ND CROSS, OPP: PRAGATI GRAMEENA BANK, BELLARY.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SHRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV.]

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

¶13

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, TIPPU SULTAN PALACE, CHAMRAJ PETH, BANGALORE BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, BELLARY, REPTED. BY DIST. MANAGER.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SHRI VINAYAK KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R-1, SHRI K.L.PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2, R-3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:18/10/2010 AT ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Though this petition is listed today for orders, since the dispute involved in the petition is covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case

¶23

of “Smt. R. Devi vs. State of Karnataka” (W.P.No.13655/2009 disposed of on 15.02.2011), this petition was heard on merits.

¶24

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was an employee of Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Bellary. He was relieved

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

from his duty on 31.07.2008, on the ground that he had attained the age of superannuation namely 58 years. However, by then, the Government of Karnataka had increased the age of retirement of the Government employees to 60 years. Nevertheless, the petitioner was relieved since the said Government order had not yet been applied to the employees of the Co-operative Banks. Thereafter, the petitioner aggrieved by his premature retirement, filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.30674/2008 on 05.09.2008. Similarly placed persons also had filed several writ petitions. The said issue was ultimately decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Lingappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, Writ Appeal No.3801-04/2009 and connected matters disposed of on 16.11.2009 granting the benefit of continuation of service till the age of 60 years. In terms of the said decision, the writ petition filed by this petitioner in W.P.No.30674/2008 came to be disposed of by order dated 19.02.2010. Pursuant to thereof, the petitioner was reinstated on

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

05.04.2010. However, with regard to question of payment of salary, there were divergent views. The following questions were referred to Full Bench.

¶29

“Whether an employee of the Cooperative sector, relieved of his duties after attaining the age of 58 years is entitled to payment of salary till the date of reinstatement pursuant to the interim order of this Court passed in writ petition i.e., during the period for which he has not worked?”

¶30

The Full Bench in Smt. R. Devi, referred to

¶31

supra disposed of on 14.02.2011, bifurcated such employees into three categories. Firstly, the employees who agitated against the order relieving them at the age of 58 years by filing petitions before this Court without loss of time irrespective of fact that they had benefit of interim order or not. Secondly, the persons who had approached this Courts belatedly (say after three months) though they had knowledge of the Government order and thirdly persons who did not approach this Court at all, but thereafter, were extended the benefit of

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

continuation by the Management themselves due to the declaration of the legal position.

¶34

The Full Bench further held that the employees covered by the first category are entitled to full back wages, while the persons falling under the second category would not be entitled to back wages from the date they were relieved from the service at the age of 58 years till the date on which they filed the writ petition, even if no interim orders were granted in their favour and in respect of 3^rd category, they will not be entitled to back wages for the period they had not worked. As noticed supra, the petitioner after having been relieved from the service on 31.07.2008, said to have filed the writ petition in W.P.No.30674/2008 on 05.09.2008 i.e., within about one month five days. This fact is not disputed by any of the respondents. Therefore, this petitioner would fall within the first category formulated by the Full Bench. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the salary for

¶35

: 6 :

¶36

the period from 01.08.2008 up to 04.04.2010 the date on which he was reinstated.

¶37

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed by way of writ of mandamus to pay back wages to the petitioner for the period from 01.08.2008 up to 04.04.2010, within three months from today.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Rsh

K Basalingappa S/O. Late Rudrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Basalingappa S/O. Late Rudrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renukacharya Education Society (R) Vs Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner

Smt Drakshayanamma Vs Smt Neelamma

Y G Hirekurubar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharadabai W/O. Somanathasa Baddi Vs Channabasappa S/O. Irappa Jamakhandi

Mallappa S/O. Gurushantappa Ramagiri Vs the Director of Pre University Board

Shivasharanayya Kudlayya Shivayogimath Vs the Principal Secretary