Allowed

Prf. Narayan S/O Krishna Marathe v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022WP/112604/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition alleging denial of pensionary benefits. It held that a retired principal's services rendered since regularization, prior to acquiring the Master's degree, must be reckoned for pension. The impugned communication was quashed, directing respondents to refix pension and pay arrears.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication quashed; respondents directed to refix pension reckoning service from 16.6.1969 and pay arrears within four months.

Prf. Narayan S/O Krishna Marathe Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 112604 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 112604 OF 2014 (S-R)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRF. NARAYAN S/O KRISHNA MARATHE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED PRINICIPAL, R.P.D.COLLEGE, RESIDING AT III CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR, BELGAUM-590006

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SAURABH A SONDUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶13

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KARNATAKA, BANGALORE P.B.NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPTD.BY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

¶14

SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KARNATAKA, BANGALORE P.B.NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPTD.BY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,BENGALURU

¶16

¶17

WP No. 112604 of 2014

¶18

THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DHARWAD

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL RPD COLLEGE, TILAKAWADI, BELGAVI

¶20

THE CHAIRMAN SOUTH KONKAN SOCIETY, TILAKAWADI, BELGAVI

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5, R6 R7 - SERVED)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO: A. QUASHING THE ENDORESEMENT/COMMUNICATION DATED 29/01/2014 IN KASHIE/97/THREESOUYO/2004-05 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A. B. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER FROM 01/08/1969 TO 17/06/1978 WITH ALL BENEFITS.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner was appointed as part time lecturer by respondent No.4 on 16.6.1969 and thereafter the petitioner’s services were regularized permanently after obtaining permission from the Government on 31.7.1969. The petitioner acquired qualification in Master Degree in Economics on 17.6.1978 and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2004. The petitioner’s services rendered w.e.f. 31.7.1969 till he acquired the qualification in Master Degree in Economics on 17.6.1978 was not reckoned for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted an application for

¶27

¶28

WP No. 112604 of 2014

¶29

revised pension and pensionary benefits. The said request was not acceded by the 4^th respondent and the impugned communication was issued stating that the petitioner is not entitled for refixation of pension and pensionary benefits since he had acquired the qualification only on 17.6.1978 and as such, the prior services rendered by the petitioner cannot be reckoned for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner were regularized on 31.7.1969 without any demur and the petitioner having worked from 31.7.1969 till he acquired the Master Degree in Economics is entitled for reckoning the said services for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V Sukumran –vs- State of Kerala (AIROnline 2020 SC 859).

¶31

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is not qualified for appointment of lecturer as on the date of regularization of his services and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for fixation of pension and pensionary benefits. Hence, he submits that the impugned communication issued by the 4^th respondent is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 112604 of 2014

¶34

I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶35

It is undisputed that the services of the petitioner were regularized on 31.7.1969 without any demur and he acquired the qualification in Master Decree in Economics on 17.6.1978. The petitioner had worked as Lecturer in Economics from 31.7.1969 till he acquired qualification in Master Degree in Economics. Hence, the petitioner having worked as Lecturer during the said period is entitled for refixation of his pension and pensionary benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V Sukumaran (supra) at paras-19 and 20 has held as follows:

¶36

“19. We begin by, once again, emphasising that the pensionary provisions must given a liberal construction as a social welfare measure. This does not imply that something can be given contrary to rules, but the very basis for grant of such pension must be kept in mind, i.e., to facilitate a retired Government employee to live with dignity in his winter of life and, thus, such benefit should be unreasonably denied to an employee, more so on technicalities.

¶37

While looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no dispute about the time period spent by the appellant as a CLR worker and his being at serial NO.2 for grant of pensionary benefits in the list of details of CLR workers had he continued as one. The appellant was able to advance his career by going through a process of direct recruitment by the KPSC successfully. It is not case of some unreasonable or improper benefit being extended to the appellant but that he competed against others and was successful recruited.”

¶38

¶39

WP No. 112604 of 2014

¶40

The services of the petitioner having been extracted from the date of his regularization till he acquired the qualification in Master Degree cannot be deprived of his legitimate right for fixation of pension and pensionary benefits from the date of regularization till he attained the age of superannuation. Hence, the impugned communication issued by the 4^th respondent is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶43

ii) The impugned communication dated 29.1.2014 issued by the 4^th respondent vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶44

iii) The respondents No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to refix the pension of the petitioner by reckoning services rendered by him from 16.6.1969 till he attained the age of superannuation and pay the arrears of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

BKM

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 100

Prf. Narayan S/O Krishna Marathe v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prf. Narayan S/O Krishna Marathe v. the Principal Secretary

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

Tarunkumar S/O Kenchappa Malagali Vs the Secretary (Pri and Seco.)

Shri.Suryakant S/O Gopall Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandramma W/O. Fakkirappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Pola Bala Prabha Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Ayub S/O Abdulmajeed Maniyar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Yallappa S/O. Gejjeppa Gadiwaddar Vs Gokak Taluk Land Regularization Committee