Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. a B Bange S/O Sri. Balram

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2021WP/147797/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order directing the release of full pensionary benefits with interest. The High Court held that since departmental proceedings remain pending, the applicant is only entitled to provisional pensionary benefits under Rule 214 of KCSR, and the full payment direction is modified.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; operative portion of Tribunal's order modified to grant provisional pensionary benefits pending completion of departmental enquiry.

State of Karnataka Vs a B Bange S/O Sri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.147797/2020 (S-KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KARANTAKA, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.

¶10

ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (A and E), PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-01.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

A B BANGE S/O SRI. BALRAM AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS, PATKARI OFFICE OF THE AEE GLBC SUB DIVISION NO.2, RAIBAG-691317, BELAGAVI DISTRICT RESIDENCY AT HIREKODI POST, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591274.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER GLBC CIRCLE, KNN LIMITED, JAMAKHANDI-PIN: 587301, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GLBC DIVISION NO.1, KNN LIMITED, GHATAPRABHA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591306.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GLBC SUB DIVISION, NO.2., KNN LIMITED, RAIBAG, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591317.

¶19

….RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.R.NAVEENKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SHIVARAJ BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER ON DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE BELAGAVI BENCH OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ON 03.12.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.2714 OF 2016 (ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, INDIRESH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Respondent No.1 is the applicant in Application No.2714/2016 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The respondent-State has filed this writ petition challenging

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

the order dated 03.12.2019, with regard to release of pensionary benefits to the applicant with interest at the admissible rates as directed by the Tribunal.

¶27

It is the case of the applicant before the Tribunal that the respondent-authorities passed an order dated 10/30-12-2015, withholding the pensionary benefits like DCRG., Commutation value of pension, leave salary and monthly pension from 01.06.2015 till the date of issuing of the said order and grant of accrued interest at 8% p.a. on all the pensionary benefits in favour of the applicant. The Tribunal, after considering the factual aspects of the case that the respondent-authorities initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant for his entry into service was without following the procedure contemplated with regard to regularization, allowed the Application made by the applicant and passed the following;

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) Application is allowed and the communication bearing No.PV4/CH1/2091585450/101528050/139291 dated

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

10/30.12.2015 (Annexure-A5) passed by the 5^th respondent is set aside.

¶32

(ii) The respondents are directed to release the withheld pension and pensionary benefits to the applicant, with interest at the admissible rates as per the relevant Government Order, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2019, the petitioner-State challenged the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the appointment of the applicant into the Government Service itself was void on the ground that no procedure was followed by the respondent-authorities at the time of appointing the applicant as daily wage worker in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer-II, Sub Division Raibag, in the year 1983. It is the case of the petitionerState that the daily wage workers were appointed fraudulently and no procedure was followed by the respondent-authorities at the time of appointment of the such other similarly placed daily wage workers and

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

accordingly passed the impugned order dated 10/30.12.2015.

¶36

We have heard Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Sri.R.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶37

Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from infirmity on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered Rule 214 in the right perspective and as such he submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-authorities completed the departmental enquiry against the Applicant and therefore he argued that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/applicant submitted that, no enquiry was conducted by the respondent-authorities as contemplated under KCSR/CCA Rules, mere pendency of the disciplinary

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

proceedings cannot be construed as the completion of the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 214 of KCSR. Therefore, learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate is without any instructions with regard to the completion of the proceedings, and therefore the findings recorded by the Tribunal is just and proper. There cannot be interference in this writ petition and the applicant is entitled for all pensionary benefits.

¶41

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ petition papers.

¶42

It is not disputed by the parties that the applicant was initially appointed on 01.11.1983, as a daily wage in the Public Works Department, and thereafter the applicant was regularized on 01.11.1993 as patkari in a Group-D post in PWD. Thereafter, the applicant was removed from the service on 31.05.2005 and the applicant challenged the said order before the Tribunal in application Nos.4314-325/2005 and connected

¶43

: 7 :

¶44

Applications. The Tribunal after considering the material on record by its order dated 05.06.2013 allowed those applications filed by the applicants and such other similarly placed daily wage workers and thereby set aside the order of removal dated 31.05.2005, however the Tribunal reserved liberty to the respondent-authorities to issue show cause notice and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶45

In the meanwhile, the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015. The respondent-authorities issued the letter dated 10/30.12.2015 (Annexure-A5) to the applicant and ordered for recovery of pensionary benefits insofar as the applicant is concerned. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant challenged the said order before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering the material on record, allowed the application and thereby directed the respondent-authorities to release the pensionary benefits to the applicant with interest at the admissible rates as per the relevant Government Order, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶46

: 8 :

¶47

After examining the material on record and the finding recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that at the time of deciding the matter by the Tribunal, no departmental enquiry was concluded against the applicant with regard to the charges leveled against him by the respondent-authorities. This aspect was not disputed at Bar. It is settled principle of law that unless the disciplinary proceedings are concluded against the delinquent, no pensionary benefits should be withheld against such delinquent under relevant rules. On the other hand, the pensionary benefits are required to be paid to the retired Government Servants as per the provision contemplated under service jurisprudence. In view of the provision enumerated under Rule 214 of KCSR, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by the Principal Government Advocate with regard to the interference to be made in this writ petition. However, the submission made by the learned Principal Government Advocate that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-authorities conducted enquiry and same is challenged before the Tribunal in Application

¶48

: 9 :

¶49

No.10411/2021, we are of the considered view that the till the completion of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the applicant is entitled to provisional pensionary benefits as required under Rule 214 of KCSR.

¶50

In view of the above discussions, the operative portion of the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 requires to be modified in such a way that the applicant/respondent No.1 is entitled to provisional pensionary benefits till the completion of the proceedings before the Tribunal in Application No. 10411/2021.

¶51

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

State of Karnataka v. a B Bange S/O Sri. Balram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. a B Bange S/O Sri. Balram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Deepak Deepak Jadhav Vs Shri.Shirdi Sai Sadbhakta Mandali

Rafeqahmad M Nabiwale Vs Ashok S/O Laxman Vasanand

Sri Maruti S/O Yallappa Madikkannavar Vs Smt Soumyalata

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Baburam S/O Bhavani Soni

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Anwar S/O Ismailsab Shaikhsanadi

Sri. Chandrashekara T S/O Thimmappa M Vs the State of Karnataka