Allowed

Sri. Shankar S/O Veerappa Shimpi v. the Principal Secretary to

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2023WP/111812/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two Writ Petitions seeking to quash an endorsement rejecting the petitioner's claim for additional qualifying service. Relying on WP No.6477/2011, the court held that the petitioner is entitled to 4 years of additional qualifying service under Rule 247-A of KCSR Rules despite being in a grant-in-aid institution, and directed implementation of consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner declared entitled to four years of additional qualifying service under Rule 247-A of KCSR Rules and all consequential benefits; endorsement of 02.09.2011 quashed; compliance within three mo

Sri. Shankar S/O Veerappa Shimpi Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 111812 OF 2017 (S-RES) AND WRIP PETITION NO. 111814 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SHANKAR S/O VEERAPPA SHIMPI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O H.NO. 1253/54, RUDRAKSHIMATH GALLI, BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶15

Date: 2023.09.22 10:53:34 +0530

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DHARWAD.

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL, G.G.D., ARTS, B.M.P., COMMERCE, & S.V.S. SCIENCE COLLEGE, BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R3. RESPONDENT NO.4 SERVED.)

¶22

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶25

ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 02.09.2011, VIDE NO.KA.Shi.E/Pra.ka.dha/39/Arhatadayaka He.Sever/5/2011-12/2026/5/9/11 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-"J" BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

¶26

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶29

following prayer:

¶30

“ a) To quash the endorsement issued by the third respondent dated 2.9.2011, vide No.Ka.shi.E./Pra.ka.dha/39/Arhatadayaka.He.Seve/5/2011 -12/2026/5/9/11, produced vide ANNEXURE-J, by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari,

¶31

b) To direct the Respondents to implement all the benefits of G.O. ED 143/UPC/2009, Bengaluru, dated 7.10.2009 as per the representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2010 and the representation dated 9.3.2011, vide ANNEXURE- "E", "F", "F-1" and "G"

¶32

c) To pass such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶33

Heard the learned counsel Sri. T.M. Nadaf

¶34

appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶37

Madanmohan M. Khannur appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶38

Facts in brief germane are as follows.:

¶39

The petitioner joins the services of the fourth respondent institution, a grant-in-aid institution on 16.07.1979. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to addition to qualifying service to the tune of 4 years in terms of Rule 247-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Recruitment Rules. The claim is on the basis that the petitioner is appointed on 16.07.1979 when he was aged 30 years or above, therefore, he would become entitled to addition to qualifying service to minimum of 5 years. The petitioner after completion of service of 28 years retires on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30^th April 2006. Later submits a representation to the respondent on 23^rd June 2009 seeking to consider the case for grant of additional qualifying service, as he was appointed in an aided institution when he was beyond 30 years of age. The claim of the petitioner comes to be rejected by an endorsement dated 02.09.2011. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶42

calling in question the said endorsement in the subject petitionS.

¶43

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Rule 247-A clearly empowers the petitioner to become entitled to qualifying service of 4 years, as he was admittedly appointed beyond 30 years of age. He would further contend that insofar as 2^nd prayer is concerned, the petitioner is straightaway entitled to those increments that he has sought for.

¶44

The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the Government Order which declares the petitioner and the like to be entitled to time bound, endorsement is issued on 01.04.2009 with perspective effect which would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Insofar as the grant of 5 addition to qualifying service is concerned, it is his submission that it is applicable only to Government Institutions and not the grant-in-aid institutions. He would seek dismissal of the petitions.

¶45

- 5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner would seek

¶47

to place reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.6477 of 2011 disposed on 24.11.2011 answering an identical circumstance.

¶48

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and I have perused the material on record.

¶49

The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioners joins the 4^th respondent Institution, which was by then an grant-in-aid institution, as a typist with effect from 16.07.1979. The petitioner avers that for 20 years, he continued to work in the same post and became entitled to additional stagnation increment and is entitled to addition to qualifying service. The petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2006. The petitioner then submits a representation seeking additional increment and additional qualifying service as obtained under Rule 247-A of the KCSR Rules. The issue whether an employee of grant-inaid institution would be entitled to the benefit of Rule 247-A

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶52

of KCSR Rules need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.6477/2011 has held as follows:

¶53

“3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶54

The petitioner is a Post Graduate in M.Com and after completing his studies, he was intially appointed as Lecturer in Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheswara College of Business Administration, Mangalore as a Lecturer in Commerce in the year 1978 and then he was transferred to the College represented by fifth respondent. Both the above Colleges had been admitted to grant-in-aid by respondent No.1. The petitioner thereafter discharged services for over 26 years. retired from service on attaining the age He of superannuation on 13.03.2004. The petitioner at the time of retirement was a Selection Grade Lecturer. His date of birth was 08.03.1946. As on the date of joining, the petitioner was 32 years old.

¶55

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Rule 247-A of Karnataka Civil Services Recruitment Rules (hereinafter referred to as K.C.S.R. Rules' for brevity) provides as follows:

¶56

"247-A(1) In the case of persons recruited after completing the age of 30 years in consonance with or pursuant to the rules of recruitment or policy or order of Government applicable to such recruitment, there should be added to their qualifying service, a period equal to the difference

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶59

between the age on their date of birth immediately preceding the date of recruitment and 30 years, subject to a maximum of 4 years.

¶60

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

¶61

and would submit that persons recruited after completing 30 years, are entitled to the addition of certain years subject to maximum of four years to their qualifying service. The provisions of the Rule in question are absolutely applicable to the case of the petitioner, as he had joined the services at the age of 32 years and he was entitled to such an addition. The petitioner having attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004, the authorities concerned had calculated his pensionary benefits and paid the same to him, taking into consideration the actual qualifying service of 26 years, but ignored the additional qualifying service that he was entitled to, in computing the pensionary benefits. It is this, which was the grievance with which the petitioner had approached the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, who issued an endorsement, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by an endorsement dated 15.06.2009 referring to a Government Order, which was redundant, in that, the denial on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to Triple Benefit Scheme, under which the petitioner would not be entitled to such addition of qualifying service. However, the learned Counsel would point out that on coming into force of the Karnataka Educational Institution (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as '2003 Rules' for brevity) the same would override the Triple Benefit Scheme and

¶62

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶64

would no longer be applicable and would not be relevant and this legal position has been expounded by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.848/2003 and connected matters dated 03.11.2009. A copy of which is made available and therefore the learned Counsel would submit that this legal position has been completely overlooked by the authority in denying the benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner has made a further representation. It is this basic ground on which the present petition is filed.

¶65

5. The learned Government Pleader has entered appearance and has filed statement of objections on behalf of the respondents to contend that the petitioner is governed by the Triple Benefit Scheme Rules and as such, the benant of Rule 247-A of the K.C.S.R. Rules cannot be expounded to him.

¶66

6. If this stance on the part of the State Government is erroneous, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is further stated that the case of the petitioner is indeed, pending consideration before the second respondent, who is yet to take a final decision as to whether or not the petitioner would be entitled to the addition of four years of qualifying service, as contended by him.

¶67

7. In this view of the matter, the second respondent is directed to take note of the legal position as expounded by a Division Bench of this Court as already stated and to apply the existing legal position in deciding the

¶68

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶70

petitioner's case and the benefit to which he would be entitled to.

¶71

8. Incidentally, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5 would concede that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of addition of qualifying service as contended by him, which is the correct legal position.

¶72

9. Therefore the petition is disposed of, with a direction to the second respondent to apply the legal position as it stands, namely, that the petitioner would be entitled to addition of four years of qualifying service in terms of the 2003 Rules, which would render the Triple Benefit Scheme as being redundant and therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to expedite the consideration of the case of the petitioner and to pass an order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks, if not earlier from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As a matter of form, Annexure 'B' is quashed.”

¶73

In the light of the issue already decided by a Co-

¶74

ordinate Bench in identical set of circumstances, I deem it appropriate to allow the petitions by following the order passed by this Court in WP No.6477/2011 between Prof. B.S. Ramanand and State of Karnataka.

¶75

For the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10030 WP No. 111812 of 2017 & WP No. 111814 of 2017

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i. The petitions are allowed.

¶80

ii. The endorsement issued by the third respondent dated 02.09.2011, vide

¶81

No.Ka.shi.E./Pra.ka.dha/39/Arhatadayaka.He.Seve/5/201112/2026/5/9/11, stands quashed.

¶82

iii. The petitioner is declared entitled to four years of qualifying service under Rule 247-A of KCSR Rules and further entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the said order. The respondents shall comply with the order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

kmv ct:bck

Sri. Shankar S/O Veerappa Shimpi v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shankar S/O Veerappa Shimpi v. the Principal Secretary to

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 Deepali Lengade Vs Sri Sandeep Lengade

Mr Alok Kumar Vs Mr Mallikarjun B M @ Ravi

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Canara Bank

Smt.T.Y.Varajakshi W/O Hanumanthappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri.Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Lakshmi D/O Durugappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner