Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Smt Chandrakala C Rathod W/O Late vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|22 April, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.44662 OF 2018(S-RES) BETWEEN SMT. CHANDRAKALA C RATHOD W/O LATE CHANDRAPP RATHOD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO.23, RANGANATHASWAMY NILAYA 8TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560057 (BY SRI PADMANABHA R, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION BENGALURU-560001 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585101 3. THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS(ADMN) VIJAYAPURA VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586101 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (ENTITLEMENT & ACCOUNTS) ... PETITIONER PARK HOUSE, BENGALURU-560001 BENGALURU CITY-560001 (BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 R4 SERVED) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 18.10.2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AS UNENFORCEABLE, VOID AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the communication dated 18.10.2012 at Annexure-D to the writ petition. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to reckon and count the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner from the date of entry into services i.e., 01.06.1988 and provide the difference in the terminal benefits by taking into account the date of entry into services.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that husband of the petitioner was appointed as Drawing Teacher on 01.06.1988 by the Management of S.B.J.V. Sangha (R), Sasanur, Vijayapura District. Thereafter, the appointment of the husband of the petitioner was admitted to grant-in-aid as per the Government Order dated 28.12.1996. The husband of the petitioner expired while he was in service on 24.08.2011. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Revised Pension Scheme which is dated 18.10.2012 is before this Court assailing the same, since the revised pension is fixed reckoning the admission to salary grant and not date of entry into service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very same question fell for consideration before this Court in several other writ petitions, including W.P.No.28122/2015, which was disposed of on 04.06.2018, where the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2467/2015 and connected appeals, was also taken into consideration.
4. However, having taken note that the writ appeals are pending and in the said writ appeals an interim order dated 27.11.2015 has been passed wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench had ordered that insofar as the superannuated employees, the pensionary benefits be paid taking into consideration the date of their initial appointment. This Court had held that the same is necessary to be paid to the petitioner as well. However, it was further held that the ultimate result would depend on the consideration to be made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the said writ appeals.
5. In that view of the matter, a direction is hereby issued to the respondents to settle, disburse and pay the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner taking into account the date of entry into service of the husband of the petitioner as 01.06.1988. However, if any general order is made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the said writ appeals, at that stage, appropriate application of the same be made to the case of the petitioner as well and if on the other hand, if any contentions to assail the same arise at that stage, for the petitioner, the same is also kept open.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted for file her memo of appearance within a period of two weeks from today.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Smt Chandrakala C Rathod W/O Late vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
22 April, 2019
Judges
  • R Devdas