Allowed

Smt. J D Vijayakumari v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2024WP/42437/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the denial of past service benefits for fixation with revision and pensionary benefits was allowed. The Court directed the respondents to calculate retirement benefits from the date of initial appointment with 6% interest, relying on a prior Division Bench decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to calculate retirement benefits including pension and gratuity from date of initial appointment with 6% interest per annum, payable within two months.

Smt. J D Vijayakumari Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21209 WP No. 42437 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 42437 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. J D VIJAYAKUMARI D/O DURUGAPPA. A.K., AGE 52 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, IN SRI S.G.RAMAPPA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DAVANAGERE NOW RESIDING AT 1197/1, 5^TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. JAHNAVI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM, 18TH CROSS,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:21209 WP No. 42437 of 2012

¶15

BANGALORE-560 012.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR, PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL, S.G.RAMAPPA, PRPE UNIVERSITY RAMAPPA COLLEGOE, GANDHINAGAR, DAVANAGERE -577 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6.6.09, AS PER ANN-C, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT OF PAST SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PURSPOSE OF FIXATION WITH REVISION FROM TIME TO TIME ALONG WITH ARREARS & ALSO FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENSIONARY BENEFITS AS ILLEGAL & VOID.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:21209 WP No. 42437 of 2012

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, who is working as a Lecturer with the fourth respondent, is admitted to grant-inaid by the Government Order dated 06.06.2009 along with others, and one of the conditions is that the petitioner [and the others] would not be entitled to financial benefits for the period prior to the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question would be whether the Government could have denied the benefit of grant-in-aid for the period of service rendered prior to the impugned order dated 06.06.2009 and that this question having come up before this Court in a number of writ petitions resulting in intra-Court appeals, a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 30.11.2011 has disposed of the intra-Court appeals opining that the concerned would be entitled for the benefits computed from the date of initial appointments and such benefits cannot be denied only because of certain benefits pending before the concerned.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:21209 WP No. 42437 of 2012

¶28

The learned counsel relies upon the operative portion of the order dated 30.11.2011 which reads as under:

¶29

"Writ Appeals filed by the State are dismissed. The Appellants are directed to calculate the Petitioner's retirement benefits including pension and gratuity with effect from the date of their initial appointments together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which shall be paid with effect from the date of filing of the writ petitions by each of those lecturers/teachers. The payments must be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

There shall be no order as to costs."

¶31

Sri Gopala Krishna Soodi, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of this submission. This Court, because of the similarity in the circumstances and the decision taken, is of the considered view that the petition must be allowed directing the respondents, despite

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21209 WP No. 42437 of 2012

¶33

the impugned order dated 06.06.2009, to calculate the petitioner’s retirement benefits, including the pension and gratuity, with effect from the date of his initial appointment together with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum and that interest shall be calculated from the date of the writ petition and the payments be made within a period of two [2] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

Hence, the petition is allowed with direction as aforesaid for due compliance. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the respondent for compliance within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

SA ct:sr

Smt. J D Vijayakumari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. J D Vijayakumari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.John Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vijaya N Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Radhika H P Vs Mangalore University Mudipu- Konaje

N Ramachandra Vs Canara Bank

Sri M S Shivaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Professor Dr.H.Y Kamble Vs State of Karnataka