IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT APPEAL NO.6192/2013 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN S.L.HOMBALAIAH S/O LATE LAKKANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT :NO.129, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079 (SR. CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED) (BY SRI LAKSHMAN RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE K.S.R.T.C.
BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER 2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 REGION 2, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER & CONTROLLING ... APPELLANT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 DIVISION -4,KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029 (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 ... RESPONDENTS R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 26737/2013 (L-KSRTC) DATED 11/09/2013.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant who was working in the respondent- Corporation retired on 31.01.1994 on attaining the age of superannuation. The appellant approached the third respondent-Controlling authority, seeking benefit of the Government Order dated 13.09.2006 and claiming the difference of gratuity, by filing an application. The said application was rejected by order dated 03.02.2010 on the ground of delay, against which he preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be allowed on 07.02.2013, whereby the Controlling Authority was directed to examine whether the benefit as per the Government Order dated 13.09.2006 applies to the case of the appellant herein.
2. Thereafter, the Corporation challenged the order of the Appellate Authority in W.P.No.26737/2013. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 11.09.2013. Assailing the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed by the workman.
3. The case of the appellant-workman is that he is entitled for the benefit under DCRG as per Government Order dated 13.09.2006. The ground taken is that the observation of the learned Single Judge has adversely affected the scope of the Court below in interpreting the Government Order dated 13.09.2006.
4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Rule 293-C and 293-D of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, had influenced the learned Single Judge to restrict the scope of determining the claim of the appellant. Although the short question before the learned Single Judge was to determine the question of limitation and delay, if any, in approaching the Court below, considering the case of the respective parties, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the Corporation.
5. It is discussed in paragraph-8 of the order of learned Single Judge that the Government Order dated 13.09.2006 that made the appellant-workman to claim Dearness Allowance of 90% of the basic pay to be merged, in view of Rule 293-C brought into the statute book with effect from 01.07.1993, but a perusal of Rule 293-C does not mention anything about Dearness Allowance. However, Rule 293-D deals with Dearness allowance, the benefit of which is available to persons who have retired or died on or after 28.11.1995.
6. The learned Single Judge also referred to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23306/2011 in the case of Sri T.Narayanaswamy Vs. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC and Others which was carried in W.A.No.437/2012. In both the matters, it is held that the benefit of Government Order dated 13.09.2006 is applicable only to the persons who retired or died on or after 28.11.1995, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.1994.
7. In this regard, the plea of the appellant is that whether the date 28.11.1995 as a cut off date is sustainable or not. The same has to be looked into from the statute, which entitles or disentitles the person on the basis of the date of retirement or death.
8. When the Act itself clearly states that the persons who retired or died on or after 28.11.1995 would get the benefit, it disentitles the appellant from getting any benefit under the Government Order, since the appellant-workman retired from service on 31.01.1994.
9. In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that the order dated 11.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26737/2013 is sound and proper and there are no grounds for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE JT/-