Dismissed

Dr N R Shanthamallaiah v. University of Agricultural Sciences

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024WP/1057/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow of a deceased University of Agricultural Sciences employee challenged rejection of his claim for University Pension Scheme benefits. As he had received settlement under State Government pension rules without demur, the court found him clearly distinguishable from other similarly placed litigants and rejected the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr N R Shanthamallaiah Vs University of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24781 WP No. 1057 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1057 OF 2013 (S-R)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR N R SHANTHAMALLAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR 1.

¶9

SMT. SUVARNA NIRESHA W/O. LATE N.R.SHANTHAMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.409, 2^ND BLOCK 9^TH CROSS, NEAR BDA COMPLEX R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR

¶15

HEBBAL, BANGALORE-24

¶16

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES GKVK CAMPUS, HEBBAL BANGALORE-24

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:24781 WP No. 1057 of 2013

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. M SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DT.29.5.12, ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is no more, and his wife is brought on record as his legal representative. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-A issued by the second respondent [ the University ]. The petitioner by this impugned Endorsement dated 29.05.2012 [ Annexure-A ] is informed that he has retired from his service with the first respondent on completion of 58 years and he cannot be granted the benefit of University Pension Scheme because he is drawing pension under the Government Scheme.

¶25

The petitioner, in support of his claim for pension, has relied upon his assertion that he, on his transfer with the first respondent and appointment

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24781 WP No. 1057 of 2013

¶27

as a Research Assistant, has tendered resignation from his service with the Government and he has opted for University Pension Scheme. The petitioner also relies upon his assertions that in the earlier round of litigation to which he is a party [ along with another ] in W.P.No.42743/2001 c/w W.P.No.3207/2002¹ there is a direction to consider his case for pension in terms of the University Pension Scheme and that his claim must be considered in the light of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1389/2006 on

¶28

12.05.2006 .

¶29

The respondents, without disputing that the petitioner was initially appointed with the Department of Agriculture and Forest, Government of Karnataka and he was later appointed as a Research Assistant on transfer to first respondent, assert that the petitioner's letter of resignation was forwarded to

¶30

1 These writ petitions are disposed of on 17.07.2006.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:24781 WP No. 1057 of 2013

¶33

the Government but no response was received and that the petitioner, when given the choice of opting for the pension payable under the University Pension Scheme, has chosen to receive pension under the Rules applicable to the State Government employees.

¶34

These assertions, which are part of the Statement of Objections, have not been contested. In fact, Sri. K. Satish, the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not contest the assertion by Sri. M. Sreenivasa, the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner, without demur, has received all the settlement of pension in terms of the pension rules applicable to the State Government. In the light of these circumstances, there must be a clear distinction between the petitioner and those who are other parties to the proceedings in W.P.No.42743/2001 c/w W.P.No.3207/2002 and the petitioner's request cannot be accepted only because of the orders in such proceedings when it is not

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:24781 WP No. 1057 of 2013

¶37

disputed that the differentiating circumstances were

¶38

not brought to the Court's attention.

¶39

The petition therefore stands rejected.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Dr N R Shanthamallaiah v. University of Agricultural Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr N R Shanthamallaiah v. University of Agricultural Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chandrashekar Y K Vs the Zilla Panchayath

Akshata Mohan Phadake Vs Union of India

Smt Lalitha T Vs the Chief Commissioner

Revansidha Vs Union Ofindia

Sri B R Puttaraju Vs Chief Librarian

Dr Chandra Kumar S G Vs Director General of Police &