The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraj B — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraj B — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45697-DB WP No. 21467 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 21467 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE IN KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU'- 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, EAST DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY, ULSOOR MAIN ROAD, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560008.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45697-DB WP No. 21467 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI NAGARAJ B S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51YEARS, CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE-5841, ULSOOR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560008. RESIDING AT NEAR RAJIV GANDHI COLLEGE, TUDA LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR-572106.

…RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER/DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1864/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45697-DB WP No. 21467 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2021 in Application No.1864/2021 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal ']. The respondent has filed this application with the Tribunal calling in question the Memorandum dated 23.04.2021 addressed by the third petitioner to him to furnish affirmation for cancellation of the Dearness Allowance [DA] for the period starting from the date of joining. The third petitioner has referred to Rule 41-C of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules [for short, ' the KCS Rules' ].

The Tribunal has opined that the pay protection contemplated under Rule 41-C of the KCS Rules protects even the pension and the DA paid. The Tribunal's reasoning is as under:

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45697-DB WP No. 21467 of 2025

HC-KAR

"A plain reading of the above provision makes it crystal clear that the pay of re-employed ex-service pensioners in the rank of non-commissioned officers and below has to be re-fixed under Rule 41-C of KCSR and considering that such re-fixation ignores the pension received from military authorities, the applicant is eligible for receiving DA on pension too. Therefore, the direction of the respondent no.3 to the Police Inspector under whom the applicant is working to obtain the consent of the applicant to surrender DA on pension in order to get the protection of pay is without any basis. In this context, it may not be out of place to mention that the DA on pension is actually released by the military authorities to the re-employed pensioners and in the fitness of things, it is for the military authorities to decide whether the DA on pension is payable to the reemployed pensioner, if it is contrary to rules."

Mr. Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional

Government Advocate for the petitioners, is heard on

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45697-DB WP No. 21467 of 2025

HC-KAR

the afore. The respondent has retired from military service on 29.02.2008 [ after over 15 years of service ] and he is recruited as a Civil Police Constable with the State Police Department on 22.12.2011. The petitioner’s pay is fixed based on his last drawn salary from the Military. The question for consideration is: whether the third petitioner's Memorandum dated 23.04.2021 is permissible and whether there must be interference with the Tribunal's order as against such Memorandum, is examined in the light of Rule 41-C Sub-clause (i) to (iv).

These Sub-clauses stipulate how the pay protection operates if the pay drawn in the military service is equal to a stage in the time scale of the post or otherwise , and Sub-clause (v) of Rule 41-C is categorical that for fixation of pay, the basic pay as part of the last drawn from the military service must be considered and does not include any other allowance and pension and pension equivalent to

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45697-DB WP No. 21467 of 2025

HC-KAR

Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity must be ignored . This Court therefore opines, because of the expressed language in the Rules, there is no reason for interference and the petition stands rejected.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RB