Sri K Satyanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No-5477/2021 DATED 07.04.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPLICATION BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION BEARING No A.No-5477/2021 VIDE ANNEXUREB2 AND ETC,.

¶29

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

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13508-DB WP No. 12590 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶35

Heard Sri A.C. Balaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶36

The petitioner, a retired Graduate Assistant Teacher of the Department of Public Instructions is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 07.04.2022 in Application No.5477/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereunder the petitioner's challenge to endorsement dated 18.06.2018 (Annexure-A9) rejecting his request to count his past service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits from 1989 to 2005 is rejected by the respondent-authorities.

¶37

2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a temporary teacher on 25.08.1989 at Duggaladka Village of Sulya Taluk by the School Development Committee. It is submitted that the school in which the petitioner was appointed and working was

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13508-DB WP No. 12590 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

taken over by the State Government on 25.08.1991. When he was working as such, it is submitted that he applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in the Department of second respondent and he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 30.05.2005 by respondent No.4. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have made a representation to count his service from 25.08.1989 to 30.05.2005 rendered in the school run by School Development Committee for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and the said representation was rejected under endorsement dated 18.06.2018.

¶41

2.3 Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal and Tribunal under the impugned order rejected the application on the ground of delay and latches and also on merit holding that the petitioner would not be entitled for counting his past service. Questioning the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the endorsement of the State rejecting his request to count the past service, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶42

Sri A.C. Balaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in terms of Rule 248 of the Karnataka Civil

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13508-DB WP No. 12590 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Services Rules (KCSRs), the petitioner would be entitled for counting the past service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The respondents committed an error in rejecting the same without looking into Rule 248 of KCSRs and the petitioner's past service from 25.08.1989 to 30.05.2005 requiring to be counted for pension and pensionary benefits.

¶46

3.1 Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on 25.08.1989 by the School Development Committee and in pursuance to the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 30.05.2005 under appointment letter dated 30.05.2005 (Annexure-A7). It is submitted that the petitioner has served prior to his appointment in a private aided school, he would be entitled for 1/4^th of his service, maximum to a 4 years and failure to consider is opposed to Rule 248 of KCSRs. Thus he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶47

Per contra , Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioner would not be entitled for counting his past service since the appointment of the petitioner is not approved by the

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13508-DB WP No. 12590 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

competent authority. Further, he submits that the petitioner

¶51

has not placed on record, the Government Order taking over the school in which the petitioner was working was taken over by State Government. Thus he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶53

and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal for the following reasons.

¶54

The petitioner claims that he was appointed initially on 25.08.1989 at Duggaladka Village of Sulya Taluk by the School Development Committee and on 25.08.1991 the said school was taken over by the State Government. It is further submitted that the petitioner applied in pursuance to the notification issued by respondent No.4 and the petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant School Teacher in terms of appointment order dated 30.05.2005 (Annexure-A7). The petitioner has not placed on record the order of approval of the appointment of petitioner as Assistant Teacher at Duggaladka Village School and the petitioner has also not placed on record

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:13508-DB WP No. 12590 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

the government order by the State Government taking over the

¶59

school in which the petitioner was working.

¶60

In the absence of the order of approval of

¶61

petitioner's appointment or order where the petitioner's name is included while taking over the school in which the petitioner was working, the service said to have been rendered by the petitioner prior to his appointment on 30.05.2005 cannot be considered in terms of Rule 248 of KCSRs.

¶62

Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, stands rejected .

¶63

Pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶64

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶65

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶66

DDU

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri K Satyanarayana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Satyanarayana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Smt. Anthony Mary

Sri Suresha S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Girish K C., Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited Vs Income Tax Officer

Union of India Vs Bangalore Turf Club Ltd.

M/S Power Point Vs the Union of India