IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.41082/2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN R. TUKARAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE V. RAGHAVAN, WORKING AS SELECTION GRADE ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN, KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY, JNANA SAHYADRI, SHANKARAGHATTA-577451, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
(BY SMT. SUVARNA M.L., ADVOCATE FOR ... PETITIONER M/S. M NAGA PRASANNA ASSTS, ADVOCATES) AND 1. KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY JNANA SAHYADRI, SHANKARAGHATTA-577451 SHIMOGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (UNIVERSITIES), M.S.BUILDINGS. BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR T. L., AGA FOR R2 SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DTD: 28.09.2015 AND QUASH ORDER DTD: 28.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 (VIDE ANNEXURE-L) TO THE WRIT PETITION BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITONER AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is working as an Assistant Librarian in the cadre of Selection Grade in the U.G.C. Pay Scale and it is contended that he is entitled to continue in the service of the respondent-University till he attains the age of 62 years in terms of U.G.C. Regulations. It is contention of the petitioner that the age of 60 years prescribed by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 does not apply to the petitioner.
2. Both the counsels appearing for the petitioner and respondents bring to the notice of this Court a decision of co- ordinate Bench in the case of H. J. Poornachandra Vs. Davanagere University and Another, in W.P.No.13051/2016 and connected matters which was disposed of on 23.11.2018. The petitioners in those petitions were also Assistant Librarians working in the cadre of Selection Grade in the U.G.C. Pay Scale. Similarly, prayers were made in those petitions also.
3. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagadish Prasad Sharma & Others Vs State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 633, where it was held that the contention of the petitioner would fail because the U.G.C. Regulations being a piece of delegated legislation cannot over-ride the KSU Act, 2000, which is State Legislation, in the case of conflict.
4. By virtue of an interim order, the petitioners were allowed to continue as Assistant Librarians. The petitioners had expressed their apprehensions that the salaries drawn by the petitioners for the service rendered by them after attaining the age of 60 years would be threatened to be recovered and therefore some protection has to given against likely recovery.
5. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University had fairly submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived and no such recovery can be made for the services rendered as it would be hit by ‘Doctrine of Begar’ enacted under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
6. After following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others Vs M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in AIR (1985) 1 SCC 429, the co-ordinate Bench has held that there cannot be denial of or delay in the settlement of terminal benefit of the employees who having rendered peaceful service after attaining the age of superannuation. The pension is not being a bounty is the property of the retirees and if there is a delay, the same needs to be deprecated. Similarly, as regards the recovery of salary, it was held that the respondents are not entitled to recover the salary.
7. In the light of the above, although the main relief sought for in the writ petition would fail, the University is directed to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. It is also made clear that any further delay, if brooked, would entail the respondent-University to settle the terminal benefits along with interest at 2% per month which after being paid to the petitioner shall be recoverable from the erring officials responsible for the delay.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
SD/- JUDGE DL