Allowed

Smt Sheela Shenoy B v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024WP/8262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired lecturer denied accrued interest on her accumulated GPF after the State Administrative Tribunal declined jurisdiction. The High Court held the right to interest on statutory GPF accumulations cannot be denied and issued mandamus for payment with penal levy on default.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus to respondents 1 & 3 to pay Rs.3,65,251/- interest on accumulated GPF within four weeks, failing which additional levy at 1% per mensem (2 months) then 2%, recoverable from erring officials.

Smt Sheela Shenoy B Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42636-DB WP No. 8262 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 8262 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SHEELA SHENOY B, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O SRI SUDHAKAR SHENOY, RETIRED LECTURER IN COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE KOKKARNE, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 234.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

R/AT HOUSE NO. 10, LIC COLONY, 2^ND CROSS, JEEVAN NAGAR, BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI-576 101.

¶13

(BY SRI P A KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, TO BE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT NOW CALLED AS DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:42636-DB WP No. 8262 of 2024

¶19

DIRECTOR,

¶20

PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶21

THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) IN KARNATAKA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ATICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2024 IN APPLICATION No. 733/2024, ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY KSAT BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE A.No. 733/2024 AS PRAYED FOR.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶29

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to denial of

¶30

interest on her accumulated General Provident Fund, although principal amount has been handed to her on superannuation. Petitioner's Application No.733/2024 in

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42636-DB WP No. 8262 of 2024

¶32

this regard came to be negatived by the State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2024 on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that regardless of the maintainability of his case before the Tribunal, his client is entitled to interest on the accumulated GPF. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents disputes this position making submission in justification of the impugned order.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 3.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had served as a part time lecturer in Economics from September 2002 till December 29^th , 2014, i.e., the date when she came to be observed into the government service. During the entire period, she has regularly contributed to the GPF. The closing balance in her GPF account even as per the

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42636-DB WP No. 8262 of 2024

¶36

statement furnished by the AG office is Rs.5,88,211/comprising of contribution in a sum of Rs.2,22,960/- and another sum of Rs.3,65,251/- that has accrued by way of interest. That being the position, a retired employee cannot be denied the accrued interest on the GPF when she had demitted office on retirement.

¶37

3.2. It has long been settled by the Apex Court that the State cannot deny interest on the amount credited to its hand by a public servant or a citizen in due course. It hardly needs to be stated that the contribution to the GPF is made under the statutory scheme and that the accumulated amount carries interest on it. Even otherwise, retention of monies of a private citizen by the public authority would entitle him/her to interest thereon. That is how the Parliament has enacted inter alia the Interest Act, 1978. There is neither reason nor rhyme for denying interest to a pensioner like the petitioner. No contra Rule or Ruling is placed before us to take a view in variance.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42636-DB WP No. 8262 of 2024

¶39

3.3. We do not much discuss as to whether the Tribunal

¶40

has jurisdiction over disputes of the kind. Even if we agree with the Tribunal's version as to it having no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the right to interest on the accumulated GPF cannot be denied to the petitioner, as already observed above. It hardly needs to be stated that Courts are there to do justice; they cannot send back a worthy cause by quoting some jurisprudential theories. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in DAVIS vs. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451 has observed " Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories… "

¶41

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to respondent Nos.1 & 3 to pay to the petitioner quantified interest of Rs.3,65,251/- on her accumulated GPF within four weeks, failing which, the said amount would carry an additional levy at the rate of one per cent per mensem for the first two months and two

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:42636-DB WP No. 8262 of 2024

¶44

per cent for the following period. Such additional levy

¶45

shall be recovered from the erring official personally.

¶46

Now, no costs.

¶47

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶50

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt Sheela Shenoy B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sheela Shenoy B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms U Manisha Vs M/S Suma Oil Agencies

Smt.C.v. Sumana Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmi C M Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Thimmappa Vs the Managing Director

M L Purushotham Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T. K. Thippurao Vs the State of Karnataka