Allowed

R M Mariswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024WP/3197/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a refusal to grant pensionary benefits. The Court held that Rule 235A of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules mandates proportionate pension for employees with over 10 years of service, regardless of the nature of the employing institution, and quashed the impugned endorsement denying such benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement denying pensionary benefits quashed; Director directed to consider petitioner's case for gratuity, PF and pension under Rule 235A KCSR.

R M Mariswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3197 OF 2017 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

R.M. MARISWAMY S/O LATE R.M. MADAIAH AGED 55 YEARS WORKING AS MANAGER KSFC, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI RANGANATHA S.JOIS, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRE UNIVERSITY) M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶11

THE KARNATAKA PRE-UNIVERSITY BOARD REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 18^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE – 560 003.

¶12

THE PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, MURNAD MADIKERE TALUK

¶13

¶14

KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 252 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.PADUSHI/SIBBANDHI-3/SOULABYA/BAGGE/2012-13 DTD: 23-8-2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-J, PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ENDORSEMENT AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16(1) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned endorsement dated 23.08.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-J denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is appointed in a public organization and therefore, the Karnataka Civil Service Rules are not applicable to the petitioner.

¶21

¶22

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶23

Petitioner having dutifully served as a Lecturer in a Junior College which was aided from the year 1985 until 1997, contributing a commendable tenure of 11 years 9 months and 21 days to the educational sector submitted a representation and claimed that he is entitled to avail all facilities and benefits provided to the government employees during this period. It is pertinent to highlight that respondents have not disputed the tenure of petitioner at aided college.

¶24

Upon petitioner’s decision to embark on a new professional endeavor, assumed the position of Deputy Manager at Karnataka State Financial Corporation and his appointment was on acceptance of technical resignation which is also not in dispute. Petitioner therefore rightfully sought to secure the accrued benefits, including gratuity, provident fund and pension. Regrettably, the petitioner’s earnest request was met with rejection by respondent No.2.

¶25

¶26

The rejection was purportedly based on assertion that Karnataka Civil Service Rules are not applicable to employees of public organization, thereby denying benefits to the petitioner to which he is rightly deserving.

¶27

However, on careful examination of Rule 235A of Karnataka Civil Service Rules reveals that Rule 235A explicitly provides for disbursement of proportionate pension to employees who have tendered more than 10 years of service irrespective of nature of employing institution. This Rule stands as a testament to the States commitment to ensure the welfare of financial security of its dedicated employees.

¶28

The primary objective of Rule 235A of Karnataka Civil Service Rules is to ensure that employees who have served more than ten years, regardless of nature of employing institution, are entitled to proportionate pension benefits upon retirement or resignation. This Rule aims to

¶29

¶30

recognize the contributions of long serving employees and provide them with financial security in their retirement years. By granting pension benefits to eligible employees, Rule 235A upholds principle of fairness, equity and social welfare. The consequences of denying retiral benefits to employees who have served more than ten years in government aided college can be significant and far reaching. It leads to financial hardship. Denial of retirement benefits to eligible employees constitutes a violation of their rights and entitlements under the law. Therefore, authorities cannot deny retiral benefits to employees who have served more than ten years in a government aided college on the ground that petitioner was absorbed in a public organization, ignoring the technical resignation.

¶31

It is a trite law that right to pension is a fundamental entitlement bestowed upon individuals who have dedicated their significant portion of their lives to

¶32

¶33

service, typically within public or private sector. It serves as a form of financial security and a reward for years of diligent work and contribution to society.

¶34

Thus, it becomes evident that petitioner is not only eligible but is also deserving of the benefits delineated under Rule 235A of the KCSR Rules. Any attempt to withhold or deny these entitlements would not only be unjust but also in direct contravention of the established regulations governing employee welfare and rights.

¶35

In the light of foregoing, this Court hereby orders that the impugned order passed by the Director being in contravention of Rule 235A is liable to be quashed. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶38

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated

¶39

23.08.2016 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-J is hereby quashed;

¶40

¶41

(iii) The Court hereby orders that the Director of the Karnataka Pre-University Board to promptly and diligently comply with the provisions of Rule 235A and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner and consider the petitioner’s case for gratuity, PF and pension benefits in terms of Rule 235A of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules;

¶42

(iv) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for

¶43

consideration and stands disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

R M Mariswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R M Mariswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. G.V. Rajkumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M L Nagaraja Vs Hmt Machine Tools Limited

Anjaneyalu B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraja B B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Puttaswamy T S Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Rajani Emp No. 153445 Vs Syndicate Bank