Allowed

Smt.Gangawwa W/O Durgappa Vagarnal v. the Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2019WP/102339/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders withdrawing a 15-year time-bound pay scale benefit. The High Court set aside the orders, directed re-fixation of pay and pension based on Resolution No. 1642 dated 17.10.2005, and ordered repayment of deducted amounts with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; re-fixation of pay and pension with 15 years Time Bound Scale ordered; recovery of Rs. 2,500/-, Rs. 1,22,608/- and Rs. 1,03,644/- to be repaid with 6% interest within three

Smt.Gangawwa W/O Durgappa Vagarnal Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS.102339-102341/2018(S-R)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. DURGAPPA VAGARNAL, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, RESIDENT OF KARAKIBASAVESHWARNAGAR, HUBBALLI-20, TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD.

¶10

SHRI. YALLBURGEPPA S/O. RAMAPPA GOBBARDAVAR, AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, RESIDING AT NO.45, KARAKIBASAVESHWARNAGAR, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR DURGADEVI TEMPLE, HUBBALLI-20, TALUK AND DISTRICT DHARWAD.

¶11

SHRI. KARIYAPPA S/O. HANMANTHAPPA NAIKAL, AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, RESIDING AT D.NO.14, MAIN ROAD, KARAKIBASAVESHWARNAGAR, NEAR DURGADEVI TEMPLE, HUBBALLI-20, TALUK AND DIST. DHARWAD.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. S.N.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI-20.

¶16

¶17

THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PENSION CELL, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-20, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ZONAL OFFICE NO.8, THE HUBBALLI, DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI, TALUK & DIST. DHARWAD.

¶19

THE HEALTH OFFICER, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-20, TALUK & DIST. DHARWAD.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. C.S.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶22

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) QUASH THE ORDER BG NO’S. HDMC/AC/08/48/2012-13 DATED 26.07.2012 IN RESPECT OF 2^ND PETITIONER AND HDMC/EST (HD) 70.13.009/2013-13 DATED 23.07/2012 IN RESPECT OF 3^RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 RESPECTIVELY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-D AND D1 RESPECTIVELY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-D AND D1 RESPECTIVELY IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS, (B) QUASH THE ORDER’S BG.NO’S.HDMC/398/CAO/PENSION CELL/17-18 DATED 05.06.2017 IN RESPECT OF 1S TPETITIONER, ISSUED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, HDMC/292/CAO/PENSION CELL/15-16 DATED 16.10.2015 IN RESPECT OF 2^ND PETITIONER, ISSUED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E1 AND HDMC/278/CAO/PENSION CELL/15-16 DATED 05.08.2015 IN RESPECT OF 3^RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E2, (C) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RETURN THE DEDUCTED AMOUNT OF RS.2,500/-, 1,22,608/- AND 1,03,644/- AND TO REFIX THE PENSION OF PETITIONERS, RESPECTIVELY AFTER RESTORING THE 15 YEARS TIME BOND SCALE FROM THE DATE OF THEIR ENTITLEMENT AS PER REPRESENTATIONS DATED 19.08.2017, 17.01.2018 &

¶23

¶24

17.01.2018 RESPECTIVELY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-L, L1 AND L2 ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 18% P.A. BOTH FOR THE DEDUCTED AND DIFFERENCE AMOUNT, (D) PASS AN ORDER INTERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2011 MADE IN W.P.NO.8282/2008 C/W. 8278/2008 AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS, ON THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ALONG WITH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITH COSTS.

¶25

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are stated to be the Paura

¶28

Karmikas appointed by the 1^st respondent authority. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not promoted till the date of retirement. The Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic Grant of Special Promotion to Senior Scale of pay) Rules 1991, provides for automatic grant of Special Promotion of Senior Scale of pay, subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria as provided under Rule 3. The petitioners admittedly were extended the benefit as per the resolution at Annexure-C . However, subsequently as per the order at Annexure-D series , the relief granted by way of 15 years Time Bound Scale of the

¶29

¶30

petitioners were withdrawn, as per the impugned order dated 03.08.2012 at Annexure-D series and there was a re-fixation of pay and deduction from terminal benefit which was ordered as per the impugned orders at

¶31

Annexure - E series.

¶32

The petitioners have challenged the said action of the 1^st respondent and further they rely upon the order passed in W.P.No.8282/2008 and connected matters disposed off on 23.02.2011 as well as the order in Writ Appeal No.30807/2012 dated 19.04.2013 and contend that the extension of the benefit under the resolution of 17.10.2005 was in issue and similar contentions raised by the 1^st respondent herein was rejected and this Court has directed extension of benefit under the resolution dated 17.10.2005. Hence, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit as provided under the Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic Grant of Special Promotion to Senior Scale of pay) Rules 1991. The

¶33

¶34

counsel for the respondents has contended that the order dated 11.07.2012 of the 1^st respondent which was the basis of impugned orders have not been challenged.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel from both sides.

¶36

The question as to whether the impugned orders are liable to be set aside in the light of the orders passed in the writ petition and confirmed in the writ appeal and affirmed by the Apex Court is the point that requires consideration.

¶37

It is to be noted that Resolution 1642 has been passed on 17.10.2005. According to which the question of extending benefit of time bound scale as per the rules produced at Annexure - A was considered and so also noting that the said benefit has already been granted to more than 300 employees and many amongst them had retired and taking note of the objections by the Audit Authority, in light of the benefit having been extended to many of the employees, it was decided to overrule the

¶38

¶39

said objection and extend the benefit of time bound scale to the employees. It is also seen that this Court had an occasion to consider the extension of time bound scale as per the rules in WP No.8282/2008 which came to be disposed off on 23.02.2011 wherein resolution of the Corporation dated 17.10.2005 has been taken note of and the petition was disposed off directing re-fixing of the pension in accordance with time bound scale. The order in W.A.No.30807/2012 and connected appeals is to be taken note of wherein the order of the Single Judge was upheld. It is further to be noticed that the said order in writ appeal was taken up before the Apex Court and SLP CC No.7557-61/2014 which came to be rejected thereby upholding the order of this Court. The contention as regards the applicability of the resolution dated 17.10.2005 as regards the employees other than Second Division Assistants was a subject matter in W.A.No.100233/2016 and this Court has clarified that the benefit of the Government order would extend to

¶40

¶41

employees of Corporation other than Second Division Assistants. Hence, it becomes clear that the resolution dated 17.10.2005 provides benefit to all employees of the first respondent Corporation and the relief has been afforded on the basis of the said resolution to other employees of the Corporation.

¶42

Insofar as the contentions of the respondents that the office order dated 11.07.2012 has not been challenged, it is to be noted that the said office order which stipulated that once the benefits under the 6^th Pay Commission has been extended and salary is fixed, the payment that was made to the employees pursuant to the earlier resolution with respect to time bound scale is to be recovered is a contention that deserves to be rejected in the light of the office order dated 11.07.2012 having been withdrawn by the Corporation by order dated 16.08.2014.

¶43

¶44

The respondent-Corporation has also contended that the employees are ineligible to have been granted pay scale of Rs.870-1600 as they were entitled only to pay scale of Rs.810-1310. This contention has been advanced without prejudice to their contention that they are not entitled to relief for time bound scale. However, it is to be noticed that the pay scale of the petitioners as per Annexure-B series at relevant point of time was Rs.810-1310. As per the table found as an annexure to the rules with respect to pay scale of Rs.810-1310, the employees are entitled to the increments and the salary would be Rs.870-1600. Accordingly, the said contention of the respondent-Corporation is also liable to be rejected.

¶45

In view of the above, taking note that the resolution dated 17.10.2005 has been extended to other employees of the respondent-Corporation and extension of relief on the basis of the said resolution which was a

¶46

¶47

subject matter of litigation has been decided in favour of the employees up to the Apex Court, no ground is made in the present case for not extending the relief to the petitioners on hand. The respondent-Corporation being a public authority ought not to take technical contentions, in light of the earlier orders passed. In view of the above, the orders at Annexure-D and Annexure-E are set aside. In view of the above, consequentially there should be a re-fixation of pay of the petitioners by restoring 15 years Time Bound Scale benefit and as the said petitioners have retired from service, the pension is to be re-fixed in accordance with the rule at Annexure-A .

¶48

The recoveries made pursuant to the orders at Annexure-E series will have to be repaid to the petitioners with interest at 6%. The repayment is to be made within a period not later than three months from receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶49

¶50

Further, the difference in amount with respect to the entitlement to the petitioners of the time bound scale from the date of the withdrawal of this benefit is to

¶51

be made good by the respondent-Corporation. Accordingly, petitions are disposed off subject to the above observations.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

*Svh/-Hmb/-

Smt.Gangawwa W/O Durgappa Vagarnal v. the Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Gangawwa W/O Durgappa Vagarnal v. the Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation

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

Siddappa S/O Yamanappa Madar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri.Mahesh S/O Rama Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Ningappa S/O Shivaling Waghmore Vs Sri.Maruti S/O Shivappa Waghmore

Smt.Shobha Virupaxi Zondh Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Prakash S/O Dinkar Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Jayashree W/O Gurudas Moger Vs the State of Karnataka