IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.35683 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI L SATHYANARAYANA S/O C LAXMANA AGED 65 YEARS RETIRED SHERISTEDAR JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES TRAINING INSTITUTE BANGALORE, R/O NO.182 GANAPATH KRUPA R M V SECOND STAGE NEW B.E.L DEVASANDRA BANGALORE-560094 (BY MR.JAVID HUSSAIN, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 4. THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES TRAINING INSTITUTE … PETITIONER CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE-560009 (BY MR.SRIDHAR N HEGDE, ADV.) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 14.2.13 VIDE ANNX-D ISSUED BY R1 PERUSE THE SAME AND QUASH THE SAME BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Javid Hussain, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sridhar N Hegde, learned counsel for the respondents.
In this petition, the petitioner inter alia is seeking for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 14.02.2013 as well as a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to protect the pay drawn by the petitioner as provided under Rule 41-A of K.C.S.Rs with all consequential benefits 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Second Division Assistant on 23.06.1962 by the District Magistrate in the pay scale of 80-3-110-150 and was posted in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bengaluru. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the order dated 02.06.2064. However, the petitioner was again appointed as Second Division Assistant by an order dated 14.12.1965 in the pay scale of 80-3-110-4-150 by the District Judge, Bengaluru. The petitioner was posted in training institute for judicial staff, City Civil Court, City Civil Court Complex, Bengaluru on deputation basis on 26.04.1983. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation and superannuated on 30.05.1996. After his superannuation, the petitioner submitted a representation on 16.09.2011 to respondent No.2, in which a prayer was made that his service from 02.06.1964 to 17.12.1965 was treated as leave without allowance by respondent No.2 by communication dated 24.08.1979. The petitioner thereupon requested for fixation of his pay as per Rule 41-A(ii) of Rule 53(a) of the KCSR. The respondent No.2 by an order dated 14.02.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the Note-3 to Rule 256 of the KCSR and it was held that there was no provision to condone the break in services in case of the official who retired from service on or after 01.09.1968. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by an order dated 24.08.1979, the high Court of Karnataka has regularized the break in service of the petitioner treating the period from 02.06.1964 to 17.05.1965 as Leave Without Allowance. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on 16.09.2011 to protect the pay of the petitioner and to refix the pay and pension of the petitioner. Therefore, the ground on which the representation is submitted by the petitioner is untenable. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has justified the order passed by the Trial Court.
4. I have considered the rival contentions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, the order dated 24.09.1979 has attained finality and is binding on the petitioner as well as the State Government. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has regularized the break in service of the petitioner treating the period from 02.06.1964 to 17.05.1965 as Leave Without Allowance. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the order dated 24.08.1979 passed by the High Court by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS