Disposed

Smt. Rangamani. a v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2024WP/9441/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A government employee challenged the Tribunal's refusal to stay recovery of excess salary of Rs.6,13,441 pursuant to re-fixation memoranda. The High Court, without expressing views on merits, directed the Tribunal to decide the application expeditiously and stayed the recovery meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

KSAT directed to dispose of Application No.848/2024 within fifteen days from 18.04.2024; recovery of Rs.6,13,441 from petitioner stayed meanwhile.

Smt. Rangamani. a Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13897-DB WP No. 9441 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 9441 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. RANGAMANI. A W/O. YATHIRAJ. A. H. , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING, BANGALORE-560 085.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, 6^TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13897-DB WP No. 9441 of 2024

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶19

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF STATE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING, NO. 4, 100 FT RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.03.2024 PASSED IN APPLICATION No. 848/2024 BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH (ANNEXURE-A) IN SO FAR AS REJECTION OF INTERIM PRAYER IS CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No. 848/2024 (ANNEXURE-B), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI.K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13897-DB WP No. 9441 of 2024

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the legality and correctness of the interim order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Application No.848/2024 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the KSAT'), wherein the KSAT has not granted interim order as sought by the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner approached the KSAT to quash the impugned Memorandum dated 26.12.2013 bearing No.E15974/DSERT/ADMN/NTH/7/2023-ADMN as per Annexure-A5 to the application, impugned Memorandum dated 08.01.2024 bearing No.E15974/DSERT/ADMN/NTH/7/2023ADMN as per Annexure-A6 to the application, Memorandum dated 09.02.2024 bearing No.E15974/DSERT/ ADMN/NTH/7/ 2023-ADMN as per Annexure-A9 to the application and impugned Memorandum dated 20.02.2024 bearing No.E15974/DSERT/ADMN/NTH/7/2023-ADMN as per Annexure-A11 to the application issued by respondent No.3 and to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits available to the petitioner forthwith. In the said application, the petitioner sought for an interim prayer to stay the recovery

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:13897-DB WP No. 9441 of 2024

¶30

of an amount of Rs.6,13,441/- from her in pursuance to the impugned Memorandums dated 08.01.2024, 09.02.2024 and 20.02.2024 as per Annexures-A6, A9 and A11, respectively to the application, as stated supra.

¶31

The KSAT, after hearing the petitioner, rejected the interim prayer of the petitioner and directed the Government Pleader to take notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and to file reply statement by 18.04.2024 for consideration of the main prayer.

¶32

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this

¶33

petition.

¶34

We have heard Sri Prithveesh.M.K., learned counsel

¶35

for the petitioner so also Sri Kiran Kumar, learned HCGP for the respondents.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order passed by the KSAT is in the nature of final order as the KSAT virtually gives a finding on the correctness of the Memorandum dated 26.12.2023 to the effect the re-fixation of pay is correct in law. He also contend that the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13897-DB WP No. 9441 of 2024

¶38

KSAT has proceeded merely on the ground that re-fixation of pay is correct in terms of Rule 41-A (i) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules without appreciating that the order of re-fixation of pay as well as the order of recovery was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without hearing the petitioner. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court to buttress his arguments. Lastly, he would contend that the recover of excess amount of Rs.6,13,441/- will put the petitioner into financial burden since she and her family are completely dependent on her salary and the petitioner is also suffering from several health aliments. Further, she is due to retire in less than 1 year 4 months. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties so also having given our anxious consideration to the documents placed before us including the order on interim prayer dated 07.03.2024 passed by KSAT, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the KSAT to dispose of the Application No.848/2024 within fifteen days from 18.04.2024 by hearing both the parties to the lis. In the meantime, there shall be stay of recovery of an amount of

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:13897-DB WP No. 9441 of 2024

¶42

Rs.6,13,441/- from the petitioner in pursuance of the Memorandums dated 08.01.2024, 09.02.2024 and 20.02.2024 as per Annexures-A6, A9 and A11, respectively to the

¶43

application, issued by respondent No.3.

¶44

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Smt. Rangamani. a v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rangamani. a 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

Sri B Krishna Vs Dr. Surendranath Singh

Sri. Siddaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Pankaj Kumar Vs Platinum City

A Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt v Kamalamma Vs Sri K Srinivas

Mr Joseph Christopher Ratnam Vs Mrs Salma I Ahmed