Allowed

Smt L Bhagyalakshmi v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Bwssb)

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024WP/3203/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A former Assistant Manager whose absorption with BWSSB was annulled sought settlement of retiral benefits on voluntary retirement. The Karnataka State Finance Corporation had treated her as resigned. The court held the resignation flowed only from the annulled absorption and directed KSFC to settle all financial benefits.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to settle all financial benefits payable on voluntary retirement on or before 30.09.2024; liberty reserved to work out recovery from first respondent.

Smt L Bhagyalakshmi Vs Bangalore Water… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25851 WP No. 3203 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3203 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT L BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O N B BAGARI AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 51/4 21^ST MAIN ROAD, 22^ND CROSS VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560040

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VIJAYA N ARADHYA.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.03 11:16:11 +0530

¶12

MANAGING DIRECTOR / CHAIRMAN BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD (BWSSB) KAVERI BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR K GROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE FINANCE CORPORATION NO 1/1 NEAR CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION THIMMAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560002.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B L.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶16

SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:25851 WP No. 3203 of 2021

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCEPT THE VRS ON MEDICAL GROUNDS AND TO GRANT TERMINAL BENEFITS SALARY DUE GRATUITY AND PROVIDENT FUND ALONG WIT INTEREST OF 8 PERCENT TILL THE DATE OF BENEFITS; FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶21

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner was appointed with the second respondent as an Assistant Manager [Legal] in the year 1996, and in the year 2014, while she was on deputation with the first respondent, the first respondent has issued Notification dated 01.08.2014 for absorption of her services. The other employees of the first respondent have challenged such Notification before this Court in the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.43649-43651/2014 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner's absorption with the first

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:25851 WP No. 3203 of 2021

¶26

respondent, though under certain Regulations, is contrary to the provisions of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1964 and the relevant Cadre and Recruitment Regulations.

¶27

This Court, at the first instance, has granted interim order staying the petitioner's absorption with the first respondent, but has ultimately disposed of these writ petitions on 17.07.2019 without going into merits in the light of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that she has submitted her request for voluntary retirement with the first respondent because of the injuries suffered in an accident. This Court's order reads as under:

¶28

"In view of these developments, Annexure-A dated 01.08.2014 is set aside. Writ petition stands allowed. Respondent No.4 is permitted to make her grievance before the KSFC by making necessary application and in the event of respondent No.4 submitting any such representation or application for settlement of her dues, the same shall be completed within

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:25851 WP No. 3203 of 2021

¶31

a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application of respondent No.4."

¶32

The petitioner's grievance is because her retiral benefits are not settled in terms of her application for voluntary retirement, and she contends that she is entitled to all permissible amounts payable with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date she submitted her application for voluntary retirement till the date of payment.

¶33

If Smt. Vijaya N Aradhya, the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioner, argues in support of the petition for directions to the respondents emphasizing the afore, Sri B L Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that the Notification dated 01.08.2014 for the petitioner’s absorption will no longer be as consequence of this Court’s order and that she will continue as an employee of the second respondent and every retiral benefit must be settled by the second respondent. In fact, Sri B L Sanjeev submits that with this Court's

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:25851 WP No. 3203 of 2021

¶37

Order dated 17.07.2019, the gratuity that was payable to the petitioner is transferred back to the second respondent for needful action.

¶38

Sri Bipin Hegde, the learned counsel for the second respondent, submits that the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement and the consequential benefits have been considered by the second respondent by its Order dated 11.10.2019, and the second respondent has furnished the details of the provident fund and other benefits payable to the petitioner as a consequence of her absorption with the first respondent. The learned counsel, insofar as the second respondent's liability to settle the petitioner's claim as a consequence of her request for voluntary retirement, submits that the second respondent, in its Order dated 11.10.2019, has essentially recorded that with her absorption with the first respondent she has tendered resignation which is accepted, and therefore, her services with the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:25851 WP No. 3203 of 2021

¶41

second respondent has ceased and if any amount is

¶42

to be paid, it has to be paid only by the first respondent.

¶43

peculiarities of the case, that this cannot be. The petitioner's absorption has been annulled by this Court in W.P. Nos.43649-43651/2014 while specifically recording that the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement and payment of consequential benefits must be considered by the second respondent. This Court must opine that in the light of this Court's order in such proceedings, and especially with the second respondent not challenging this order, it could not have rejected the petitioner's request for financial settlement as a consequence of her application for voluntary retirement on the ground that her employment ceased with the letter of resignation. This Court must observe that the petitioner had tendered resignation as a consequence

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:25851 WP No. 3203 of 2021

¶46

of absorption and not independent thereof, and with this Court annulling the absorption, that letter cannot be of any consequence.

¶47

6. Therefore, there must be an order in

¶48

favour of the petitioner, and insofar as any transfer amounts payable to the petitioner, the second respondent must necessarily work out with the first respondent and transfer of amounts inter-se these respondents cannot be a reason to reject the petitioner's entitlement consequent to her submission of request for voluntary retirement. The retiral benefits are earned for services rendered by the petitioner while she was in employment with both the respondents which has gone through a dispute as aforesaid. Hence the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

[a] The petition is allowed directing the second respondent to settle all financial benefits payable to the petitioner upon

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:25851 WP No. 3203 of 2021

¶53

her cessation of service on voluntary retirement as a consequence of this Court's Order dated 17.07.2019 in the

¶54

writ petitions in W.P. Nos.4364943651/2014 and connected matters.

¶55

[b] The second respondent shall settle all such amount on or before 30.09.2024 and insofar as any money made over to the first respondent towards the petitioner's account, the second respondent is reserved with liberty to work out the remedies in this regard.

¶56

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶57

AN/-

Smt L Bhagyalakshmi v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Bwssb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt L Bhagyalakshmi v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Bwssb)

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

Karthik M S/O Late Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Pamesh Kattimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N R Nandish Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Shankar B P Vs the Karnataka Veterinary

Umadevi Vs Principal Secretary

N. Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka