Dismissed

Dr B Shivaraj v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2020WA/2704/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ appeal filed by retired and superannuated professors seeking to enforce enhancement of retirement age from 62 to 65 years. Noting no legislative amendment or government decision on this enhancement, the court held the relief was inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed as no merit found; no direction to consider applications for age enhancement.

Dr B Shivaraj Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL No . 2704 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. B. SHIVARAJ

¶10

S/O BOREGOWDA C.L., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS PROFESSOR, (UNDER ORDER OF RETIREMENT) DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF MYSURU MYSURU- 570 005.

¶11

PROFESSOR C. RUDRAPPA S/O LATE CHITRIKIKURUGUDAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROF. DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL PROCESSING VSKUPG CENTRE,

¶12

SANDUR-BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 119. ... APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶17

HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, SACHIVALAYA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SHESHADRI ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶20

THE REGISTRAR MYSURU UNIVERSITY MANASAGANGOTRI MYSURU – 570 006.

¶21

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BAHADDUR SHAH ZAFARMARG NEW DELHI – 110 002.

¶22

RAFIUNNISA BEGUM D/O M. ABDULAZEEZ AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PROF. CHAIRPERSON OF DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN URDU UNIVERSITY OF MYSURU MANASAGANGOTRI MYSURU – 570 006.

¶23

SHASHIDHAR. L., GUDIGENAVAR, S/O LINGRAJD. GUDIGENAVAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PROF. DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN HINDI, MANASAGANGOTRI UNIVERSITY OF MYSURU

¶24

MYSURU – 570 006. ... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2 SRI C. SHASHIKANTH, ASG FOR R4 SRI T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶26

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE))

¶27

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.16644-47/2018 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶29

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This Writ appeal has been preferred by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16646-647/2018, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶32

We have heard Sri. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants herein through Video Conference.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submitted that the petitioners along with similarly placed persons had filed writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners for enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years in terms of their representation dated 08.03.2018 vide

¶34

¶35

Annexure – ‘L’ to the Writ petition and accordingly to pass a direction in that regard.

¶36

The petitioners were working as professors as on the date when they filed writ petitions. They have now been superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation, which is 62 years. Learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petitions by placing reliance on the earlier judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Education and others Vs. Dr. R. Halesha and others reported in ILR 2012 Kar. 545. Further the learned Single Judge opined that some of the professors had sought relief before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had also rejected their claim. In the circumstances, writ petitions were dismissed.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants herein contended that the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 has enhanced the aged of retirement from 62 years to 65 years, that similar benefit ought to have been given to the

¶38

¶39

petitioners/appellants herein. That a Committee has also been constituted for that purpose and only an interim report has been submitted, but no final report has been submitted.

¶40

Be that as it may. It is noted that the petitioners who approached this Court, including the appellants herein, were either superannuated on attaining the age of 62 years or nearing that age. The fact remains that there has been no decision taken by the State Government enhancing the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years. Moreover, there is no amendment made to the age of superannuation. In the circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioners for consideration of their representation so as to enhance the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years would not arise. This is precisely because as on the date when they filed writ petitions, some of the petitioners had already attained the age of superannuation and therefore, they could not have sought such a relief or they were approaching the age of superannuation and there was no amendment made to the said age of superannuation by enhancing the age to 65 years.

¶41

¶42

It is also noted that second appellant herein was aged 62 years when he filed he writ petition and first appellant was aged about 61 years and nearing the age of superannuation when he filed the writ petition. With the passage of time, he has also been superannuated. Therefore, no purpose would be served in directing the respondent authorities to consider their representation for enhancing the age of superannuation. This is because the appellants have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation as per the extant rules. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal.

¶43

Writ appeal is, hence, dismissed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Psg*

Dr B Shivaraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr B Shivaraj v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B H Ramachandra Vs the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sharan Desai Vs the Ministry of Human Resource Development

Sudarshan B K Vs the State of Karnataka

Padma Vs N. M. Maruthi Kumar

Sri M C Surendra Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sri. R M Manjunatha Gowda