Partly allowed

Sri. v. Narasimhamurthy v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2021WP/17987/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A former Assistant Director challenged the Tribunal's refusal to grant revised ex-gratia pension benefits based on the 5th Pay Commission. The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order, relying on coordinate bench precedents, and directed the State to calculate and pay the difference based on the revised scale within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 07.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal was set aside; respondents directed to pay difference in ex-gratia amount within eight weeks.

Sri. v. Narasimhamurthy Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

W.P.No.17987/2018 (S – KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI V.NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETD. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, R/AT NO.94, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, S.B.NAGAR, BELEKAHALLI, B.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560076. ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI LAXMIKANTHA K.B., ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2 . THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶14

3 . THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) OF INDUSTRIES

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶17

4 . THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KARNATAKA PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA.)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, IN APPLICATION No.2805/2009.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application No.2805/2009 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application along with other connected matters placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Tribunal in Application Nos.4053-4073/2010 (D.D.

¶23

14.09.2017).

¶24

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner is that

¶26

pursuant to his voluntary retirement on 31.05.2006, the revised pensionary benefits with the revised scale of pay was sanctioned by the Government as per 5^th Pay Commission implemented from 01.04.2006. However, ex-gratia amount has been calculated in the pay scale of the year 1999. The pay scale of all the employees including the employees who have retired before 01.04.2006 have been revised as per Government Order dated 16.05.2007 but the request of the petitioner for revised ex-gratia amount has been rejected. Representation submitted in this regard is to no avail, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Tribunal seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation for payment of difference in ex-gratia amount. The Tribunal having dismissed the application, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the order of the Tribunal dated 16.09.2017 passed in Application No.5165/2014 connected with Application No.5225/2014 in the case of Mr. R. Devadas vs. The State of Karnataka submitted that in identical circumstances, the Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in W.A.No.1851/1998 and connected cases (M/s. I.T.I. Limited vs. M/s. I.T.I. Ex/VR Employees/Officers Welfare Association) (D.D. 13.09.2001), which inturn has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶29

Prantiya Vidhyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation Etc., vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others Etc., reported in 1992 (3) SC JUDGMENTS TODAY 51, has allowed the applications quashing the endorsements issued therein further directing the respondents to pay the difference in ex-gratia amount calculated on the basis of the revised pay scale together with admissible rate of interest from the date of

¶30

¶31

retirement of the applicants from service till the date of payment, within a time frame. Learned counsel further inviting the attention of this Court to the co-ordinate bench decision in W.P.Nos.47105/2018 and 20023/2019 (D.D. 06.06.2019) wherein the order of the Tribunal in Application No.5165/2014 and connected matters were challenged, submitted that the same came to be dismissed referring to the judgment of I.T.I. supra in W.A.No.1851/1998. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside extending the relief as sought for, to pay the difference in ex-gratia amount.

¶32

Learned AGA appearing for the State though

¶33

made an effort to distinguish the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner but failed to substantiate the same in view of the categorical finding made by the co-ordinate bench in identical circumstances wherein, one of the applicant therein had

¶34

- 6 -

¶35

opted for VRS under the Government Order dated 01.09.2003 and got retired on 31.05.2006.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the

¶37

applicant/petitioner herein has opted for VRS under the very same Government Order dated 01.09.2003 and he got retired on 31.05.2006. That being the parity in the facts of the present case with that of the applicants in the matter referred to above, which was challenged by the State before this Court unsuccessfully, we do not find any ground to differ from the view taken by the coordinate bench in W.P.Nos.47105/2018 and 20023/2019. The review application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal has been rejected having regard to the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

¶38

Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside

¶39

the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal insofar as the Application No.2805/2009 is concerned and direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his

¶40

¶41

representation in the light of the judgment referred to by this Court in W.P.Nos.47105/2018 and 20023/2019 (D.D. 06.06.2019) wherein the order of the Tribunal passed in Application No.5165/2014 and connected matter has been confirmed. Such compliance shall be made by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶42

Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.

¶43

All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

PMR

Sri. v. Narasimhamurthy v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. v. Narasimhamurthy 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

Smt Pramila Cheriath Vs the State of Karnataka

Miss Radhika Vs the Officer Commanding

Sri. S.A. Sreedhara Bhatta Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C Somashekar Vs Smt S Roopa

Sri Anthoji Rao M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka