Dismissed

The Secretary v. Krishnappa H.B

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2022RP/350/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a review petition filed by the State Government against a 2021 order quashing a post-retirement recovery of an erroneous increment granted in 1992. Citing Rafiq Masih, the court held that the lapse of time precluded recovery and that the earlier decision was not an error apparent on the record.

What did the court decide?

Review petition rejected for lack of merit.

The Secretary Vs Krishnappa H.B — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

REVIEW PETITION No.350 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶9

THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY SECRETARY (SERVICES) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY AND HIGHER) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATKA M. S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶11

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (SECONDARY EDUCATION) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶12

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TUMAKURU (SOUTH DISTRICT) TUMAKURU – 572 101

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

[BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA]

¶16

AND

¶17

H.B. KRISHNAPPA S/O SRI BORALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETIRED AS HEAD MASTER BETTADA RAMESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL BISALEHALLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU (SOUTH DISTRICT) TUMAKURU RESIDING AT DOOR NO.329/1 “SRIKARA NILAYA” SHARADA NAGAR TIPTUR - 572 201

¶18

BETTADA SRI RAMESHWARA PRASHANTA SHIKSHANA SAMITI (REGD) BISALEHALLI MASAVANAGHATTA POST TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 201 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEFURE, 1908 PRAYING TO A) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22/07/2021 IN W.P.NO. 10463/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC.

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The State Government has preferred the subject review petition seeking review of the order dated 22.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.10463/2020.

¶25

Smt. M.C.Nagashree, appearing for the petitioners.

¶26

The learned AGA, Smt. M.C.Nagashree

¶27

appearing for the petitioners would take this Court through a document of the year 2011, to contend that what was given to the writ petitioner No.1/respondent No.1 as an increment in the year 1992, was erroneous. It is an admitted fact which is observed in the course of the order that an increment that was granted in the year 1992, was sought to be recovered after his retirement from his pension in the year 2018, 26 years after the grant. Therefore, this Court considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case State of Punjab

¶28

¶29

v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , allowed

¶30

the petition and quashed the said order of recovery.

¶31

The review is now filed on the ground that a particular document was not placed before the Court while disposing the writ petition. In the peculiar facts of this case, this cannot be a ground to consider the review petition as the increment that was granted is sought to be recovered after 26 years of its grant and the matter being completely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) . Any other ground, if considered, in the present review petition, it would amount to rehearing the matter in the garb of review. In my considered view, there is no error apparent on the face of the record entailing review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

¶32

The learned AGA at this juncture would further submit that it would be opening pandora’s box

¶33

¶34

as this order would be cited as a precedent in other cases.

¶35

The apprehension is understandable as the order passed in the W.P.No.10463/2020 is on the facts obtaining in the case at hand.

¶36

For the aforesaid reasons, the Review Petition

¶37

lacks merit and is rejected.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

The Secretary v. Krishnappa H.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. Krishnappa H.B

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

Sri. Madhu Mohan Reddy Vs Sri. Sathish v Poojary

Mr Ram Mohan Vora Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Balachandar Krishnaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Shaik Ajmathulla Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Naifulla Hussaini Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Rajendra Alias Paul Vs State of Karnataka