Dismissed

The State of Karnataka Repr by Dire General Nd Insp Genl of Police No 2 Nrupatunga Road Bengaluru v. Gurangoueda

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2023WP/101122/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging issuance of endorsement by state authorities to Special Reserve Police Constables requiring surrender of Dearness Allowance on pension before claiming pay re-fixation under Rule 41-C of Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Court upheld Tribunal's rejection of this requirement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Tribunal upholding respondents' claim for pay re-fixation without surrender of Dearness Allowance. Petition disposed without interference. Respondents to comply with Tribunal directi

The State of Karnataka Repr by Dire… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11002-DB WP No. 101122 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 101122 OF 2022 (S-KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NO. 2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, NO. 2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

THE COMMANDANT KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, 10^TH BATTALION, SHIGGON, HAVERI DISTRICT-581205.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶15

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.09.29 11:12:03 +0530

¶16

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

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. GURANGOUDA PATIL S/O NINGANAGOUDA, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE CONSTABLE, 10^TH BATTALION, KSRP, SUB-DETACHMENT, ‘G’ COY, SHIGGAON, RAYPUR, HUBLI, R/AT: H.NO.4, MATHASHREE APARTMENT, INDIAN GAS GOWDAN LINE, NEAR BADDAMMA TEMPLE, GANDHINAGAR, DHARWAD-580025.

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11002-DB WP No. 101122 of 2022

¶20

SRI. IBRAHMIMSAB KHATAL S/O MUKTUMSAB, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE CONSTABLE, 10^TH BATTALION, KSRP, SUB-DETACHMENT, ‘G’ COY, SHIGGAON, RAYPUR, HUBLI, R/AT: MUDAWAD AT POST, HALIYAL TALUK, KARWAR DISTRICT-581329.

¶21

SRI. SOMALINGAPPA G BASARAGI S/O GURAPPA, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE CONSTABLE, 10^TH BATTALION, KSRP, SUB-DETACHMENT ‘H’ COY, SHIGGAON, RAYPUR, HUBLI, R/AT RAMAPURA PLOT, SOUNDATTI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591126.

¶22

SRI. SIDDARAMAPPA Y KADARAKOPPA S/O YANKAPPA, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE CONSTABLE, 10^TH BATTALION, KSRP, ‘C’ COY, SHIGGAON, HAVERI, R/AT: H.NO.555, 10^TH BATTALION, SHIGGAON, GANGEBHAVI, HAVERI DISTRICT-580025.

¶23

SRI. RUDRAPPA BADIGER S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE CONSTABLE, 10^TH BATTALION, KSRP, ‘E’ COY, SHIGGAON, HAVERI, R/AT: H.NO.421/B/20/23, VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR, BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591102.

¶24

SRI. GOVINDAPPA F KIDIYAPPANAVAR S/O FAKEERAPPA, AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE CONSTABLE. RPC NO.122, 10^TH BATTALION, KSRP, ‘D’ COY, SHIGGAON, HAVERI, R/AT: H.NO. J-583, 10^TH BATTALION, SHIGGAON, GANGEBHAVI, HAVERI DISTRICT-581205.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 TO R6; R2 AND R3-NOTICE SERVED)

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11002-DB WP No. 101122 of 2022

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUAHSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI BENCH IN APPLICATION NO.10273 TO 10278 OF 2021 DATED 30.08.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. PASS ANY OTHER ORDERS WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 30.08.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in Application Nos.10273 to 10278 of 2021 and filed by the respondents whereby the said applications were allowed by the Tribunal.

¶32

The material on record discloses that the respondents who were applicants before the Tribunal are Special Reserve Police Constables and are drawing pension. Subsequent to retirement, they joined the State Police Service as Civil Police Constables/District Armed Reserve personnel. Initially, when they joined the State Police Service, their pay was fixed in terms of Rule 41-C of

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11002-DB WP No. 101122 of 2022

¶34

the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs) and they were being paid their salaries accordingly. Subsequently, as a result of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and on the basis of revised LPC, the pay of the respondents was revised and re-fixed as per the said Rule 41-C. Accordingly, the respondents submitted representations seeking re-fixation of their pay in terms of Rule 41-C.

¶35

However, the petitioners issued endorsements to the respondents informing them that they had to surrender the Dearness Allowance on pension received by them and submit necessary documents in that regard after which their request for re-fixation of their pay under Rule 41-C would be considered by the petitioners. The said endorsements were impugned before the Tribunal and after having been contested by the petitioners, the applications came to be allowed vide impugned order passed by the Tribunal which is assailed in the present petition.

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11002-DB WP No. 101122 of 2022

¶37

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the main ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is, that in order to obtain the benefit of re-fixation under Rule 41-C of KCSRs, it was essential that the respondents surrender the Dearness Allowance on the pension received by them from the Special Reserve Police Services where they were employed earlier and without giving the said benefit of Dearness Allowance, it was not permissible for the respondents/applicants to claim re-fixation under Rule 41-C. The said contention was repelled by the Tribunal which referred to earlier orders passed by this Court as well as by the Tribunal which came to the conclusion that Rule 41-C does not prescribe or stipulate surrendering of Dearness Allowance paid on pension and the same was not required to be done for the purpose of claiming the benefit under Rule 41-C since there is no nexus or connection whatsoever between the Dearness Allowance paid on pension to the respondents and their entitlement to claim re-fixation of their salary under Rule 41-C and consequently, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the

¶38

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11002-DB WP No. 101122 of 2022

¶39

respondents. In this context, it is relevant to state that a bare perusal of Rule 41-C is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has correctly held that surrender of the Dearness Allowance paid on pension to the respondents cannot be made a condition precedent to claim the benefit under Rule 41-C particularly when there was no connection or nexus whatsoever between them. The Tribunal has also correctly held that Rule 41-C itself does not postulate such a requirement of surrendering the Dearness Allowance paid on pension and in the absence of any such provision/requirement, the petitioners were not justified in passing the impugned orders which were without jurisdiction or authority of law and had been correctly set aside by the Tribunal.

¶40

Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 303 makes it mandatory for the respondents to surrender their dearness allowance paid on pension before seeking the benefit of re-fixation under Rule 41-C is concerned, a plain reading of Rule 303 will

¶41

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11002-DB WP No. 101122 of 2022

¶42

clearly indicate that the same does not relate to re-fixation of pay under Rule 41-C and merely because he is called upon to declare the amount of gratuity, bonus or pension received by him on retirement pursuant to which, the order of appointment is issued in his favour by the petitioners, it cannot be said that the respondents have to surrender their Dearness Allowance paid on pension failing which they would not be entitled to re-fixation of pay under Rule 41-C particularly when both Rule 41-C and Rule 303 operate in different spheres and areas and are not inter-linked or connected with one another in any manner or whatsoever. Under these circumstances, even this contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

¶43

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and

¶44

reconsideration of the entire material on record including the relevant statutory provisions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶45

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11002-DB WP No. 101122 of 2022

¶46

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.

¶47

The petitioners are directed to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal in the impugned order as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

The State of Karnataka Repr by Dire General Nd Insp Genl of Police No 2 Nrupatunga Road Bengaluru v. Gurangoueda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka Repr by Dire General Nd Insp Genl of Police No 2 Nrupatunga Road Bengaluru v. Gurangoueda

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

State of Karnataka the Prn Secretary Higher Educ Educ Deprt M S Building 6TH Fioor Bangaluru Vs Subhas

State of Karnataka the Pri Secretary Higher Educ Deprt M S Building 6TH Floor Bangaluru Vs Rajashekar

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Shri. Yamanappa S/O Hanamantappa Sungar

Sri. Sharanappa Vs Nayaz Bash

Smt. Daulatbi W/O Ismailsab Bannikatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Gulzar W/O Late Basheersab Savanur Vs the State of Karnataka