IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S N SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM W.P.NO.11068/2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI.G.K.PURUSHOTAMA, S/O G.KRISHNAPPA, AGED 58 YEARS, RETIRED UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT R/AT NO.8/42, 3RD ‘B’ MAIN, 4TH ‘B’ CROSS, SOMESHWARANAGAR, GKVK POST, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE – 560065 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE – 01.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHILPA.S.GOGI, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:27.4.2017 PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2489/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 27.4.2017 passed in Application No. 2489/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru(for short “Tribunal”).
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the top noted writ petition are as under:
The petitioner-applicant approached the Tribunal challenging the order dated 6.8.2015 in No.Si.Aa.Su.E 167 Sa.Aa.Se 2015. His case before the Tribunal was that he is an ex-serviceman and on account of injuries suffered while in service, he was discharged from Military service on the ground that he suffers from Recurrent Dis-location of right shoulder. Subsequently after discharge from military service he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 10.8.1993 and was promoted to the cadre of assistant on 10.12.1998 and further promoted to the cadre of Section officer and thereafter as Under Secretary to Government of Karnataka. He submitted a representation on 5.5.2015 to the Secretary, State Election Commission, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru, with a request to consider him for supernumerary post on medical grounds as per Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. Alternatively he also sought to consider his case for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. As per the said representation at Para 3 he has stated that he is suffering from the following diseases:
“3.At present I am suffering from the following diseases.
1 Acute excerbation of recurrent dislocation of right shoulder joint and known patient of 2 Type 2 diabetes mellitus 3 Cirrhosis of liver 4 Hepatitis “c” (+) 5 Ortho arthritis of both knee joints The State Election Commission by a notification dated 5.5.2015 relieved him to enable him to report for duty in the parent department. Pursuant to the said notification, he reported to duty on 6.5.2015 at DPAR (Service-6), Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru.
The applicant also submitted representation to the first respondent on 8.5.2015 to permit him retire voluntarily on medical grounds. In pursuance of the said representation by order dated 6.8.2015 in No.Si Aa Su E 167 Sa Aa Se 2015 by invoking Rule 285 (1) A of Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958, the respondents permitted him to retire from service voluntarily.
Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing an application in 2489/2017. His grievance was that since he had submitted two representations requesting the respondents to keep him under Supernumerary post as per Section 47 of Persons with Disability Act,1995, the respondents were not justified in permitting him to retire voluntarily on medical grounds.
The Tribunal having examined the material on record found that the intended date of retirement of the applicant was 31.8.2015 and since there was no specific request from the applicant for withdrawing the same within the intended date of retirement, the Tribunal found that there was no illegality in the impugned order retiring the applicant under Rule 285(1)A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The Tribunal also found that the applicant had suffered disability while he was serving in the Indian Army and he did not suffer any disability after joining service in the Karnataka Government Secretariat and in that view of the matter, the applicant cannot invoke the provisions of Persons with Disability Act, 1995 and the same would not come to the aid of the applicant. With these observations, the Tribunal rejected the application by order dated 27.4.2017.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.4.2017 the petitioner is before this Court. The contention of the petitioner is that the representation dated 26.8.2015 was pending for consideration and as such without examining his case under Section 47 of Persons with Disability Act, 1995, the respondents were not justified in passing the order permitting the applicant to retire voluntarily under Section 285(1)A of the Civil service Rules with effect from 31.8.2015. The petitioner would also contend that in fact his request for Voluntary retirement was conditional and was subject to consideration of his request to keep him under Supernumerary post as per Section 47 of Persons with Disability Act, 1995. He would also vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in not considering his representation dated 26.8.2015.
4. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents and having examined the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner is an ex-service man and was discharged from military service on account of disability suffered while serving in military and the medical certificate issued to the petitioner is to the effect is he suffered from recurrent dis-location of right shoulder. We have examined the representation submitted by the petitioner on 5.5.2015. The contention of the petitioner that he suffered disability while he was serving as an Assistant at the Secretariat on 31.7.2003 is not at all supported by any medical evidence. On reading Para 3 of his representation it is evident that he is again trying to highlight the earlier disability which he had suffered while in military service. The other four diseases mentioned in the representation are not at all employment related and cannot be taken as disabilities. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he has suffered the disability on account of the accident dated 31.7.2003 cannot be accepted and in that view of the matter the petitioner cannot invoke the provisions of Section 47 of Persons with Disability Act, 1995 to keep him in supernumerary post since the petitioner had already retired from service voluntarily. It appears it was only an afterthought in submitting the representation dated 24.7.2015(26.8.2015) which in fact was submitted after his request for voluntary retirement was accepted on medical grounds. The Tribunal has meticulously considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the original application and having perused the material on record, has rightly rejected the application. We do not find any infirmities in the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal while rejecting the application.
In the light of the above said discussions, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-