Allowed

Sri. K. Siddegowda v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2024WP/1335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired BBMP Engineer-in-Chief's pension and retirement benefits were withheld due to a pending inquiry concerning a namesake official in other zones. The court held this was no reason to deny benefits and directed respondents to settle them within three months without awaiting State Government approval.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents 2 and 3 to settle retirement benefits and fix pay within three months without awaiting State Government approval; liberty to file certified copy within a week.

Sri. K. Siddegowda Vs the Principal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:28512 WP No. 1335 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1335 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K. SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE KADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED AS ENGINEER IN CHIEF, O/O BBMP NR SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002, R/A NO.556 14^TH MAIN ROAD, 10^TH CROSS ROAD, PADMANABANAGAR, BENGALURU 560070.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SAHEED PASHA S.T, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ANUSHA L.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.24 12:18:32 +0530

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

¶14

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002.

¶15

THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:28512 WP No. 1335 of 2024

¶18

N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.PRINCE ISAC., AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY RETIREMENTAL BENEFITS AND TO FIX THE PENSION TO THE PETITIONER, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2021 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DISPERSE THE RETIREMENTAL BENEFITS, ATTACHED TO THE POST OF ENGINEER IN CHIEF ALONG WITH THE INTEREST OF 12 PERCENT AS ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO BE PAID; DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 09.01.2023 ANNEXURE-H, 05.05.2023 ANNEXURE-J AND 27.10.2023 ANNEXURE-K.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28512 WP No. 1335 of 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

It is undisputed that the petitioner has retired on 31.05.2021 and that vide Order dated 26.05.2021

¶26

he is granted promotion as Engineer-in-Chief with immediate effect. It is also seen that the petitioner has handed over charge, as is required, on attaining the age of Superannuation, and that the petitioner, responding to the requisition dated 22.10.2021, has furnished certain documents for settlement of retrial benefits. The petitioner contends that despite he having retired with effect from 31.05.2021 and complying with all requirements, his retirement benefits are not settled and therefore, this Court must direct the respondents to pay his retrial benefits and fix the pension benefit with effect from 01.06.2021.

¶27

If Sri Shaheed Pasha S.T., the learned counsel who appears on behalf of Ms. Anusha L, argues in support of the prayer as aforesaid relies upon the circumstances, Sri B.L. Sanjeev, the learned

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28512 WP No. 1335 of 2024

¶29

standing counsel for the BBMP and its officials [the second and third respondents], submits that the petitioner's retrial benefits are not paid and neither the pension fixed because of certain pending inquiry into the allegations on misdemeanor by some persons within Rajarajeshwari Nagar and West Zones; that it is now ascertained that the petitioner's namesake, [another Sri K.Siddegowda] was the person who was working with this zone at the relevant point of time and that the petitioner has not worked in these zones.

¶30

Sri B.L. Sanjeev submits that with this

¶31

clarification, the Communication dated 18.03.2024 is addressed by the Deputy Commissioner [Administration] BBMP to the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Karnataka, seeking for further permission. When queried, Sri B.L.Sanjeev, based on the

¶32

Communication, is categorical that if the petitioner

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:28512 WP No. 1335 of 2024

¶35

was not working at the relevant time in the respective

¶36

zones, the approval/permission of the State Government is not required to settle the retrial benefits and fix the pension.

¶37

This Court must opine that if the petitioner

¶38

was not working within the zones where inquiry is pending regarding execution of certain work, and if retrial benefits/pension must be fixed without approval from the Government, merely because the petitioner's namesake is being inquired into would be no reason to hold the service benefits. This Court must also observe that it is more than three years since the petitioner has left the office. As such, this Court concludes that there must be a direction to the second and third respondents to settle the retrial benefits to the petitioner and fix his pay within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order without awaiting any

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:28512 WP No. 1335 of 2024

¶40

specific permission/approval from the State

¶41

Government in this regard.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed with directions as

¶44

aforesaid and with liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order within a week for such

¶45

decision

¶46

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶47

SA ct:sr

Sri. K. Siddegowda v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. Siddegowda 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

K R Ravinandan Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Smt. R.Shashirekha Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Matti Vs Mangalore University

Sri N Pradeepakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chandni Arora Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Sri. Panday Raj. S. Y. Vs the State of Karnataka