IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.43314/2015 (S- R) BETWEEN:
SRI.T.M.KOTRAIAH S/O LATE N.VEERABHADRAIAH AGED 61 YEARS RETIRED HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER KANCHIKERE AT & POST HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 583 125 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KARNATAKA, P.B.NO.5329 PARK HOUSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS CHITRADURGA – 577 501 4. SRI SRI SRI NIRANJANASWAMY VIDYASAMSTHE ® DODDAULLARTHI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.05.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE – F AND G RESPECTIVELY FOR SANCTIONING OF THE PENSION, QUALIFYING SERVICE TO BE TAKEN AT 30 YEARS INSTEAD OF 25 YEARS AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS PER THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 15.02.2012 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The unfortunate High School teacher who retired on superannuation is before this Court for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 07.05.2015 vide Annexures ‘F’ and ‘G’ for sanctioning the pension for qualifying service to be taken at 30 years instead of 25 years and pass appropriate order as per the Government Notification bearing No.FD4SRA 2010, dated 15.02.2012.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the High School run by respondent No.4 by name Sri Gowridevi Rural High School, Doddaullarthi, Challakere taluk, Chitradurga District. The said institution has been recognized by the Government of Karnataka on 07.07.1981 for the period 1981-82 onwards to run the high school in the aforesaid address and the name. The appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant teacher was as per the government rules in respect of a vacant post by following the procedure under the relevant recruitment Rules. The post of the petitioner has been approved in the Grant-in- Aid Code for payment of salary with effect from 01.11.1986. Along with the petitioner, several other persons, teaching and non-teaching staff have also been included for salary grant issued by the respondent No.3. It is further case of the petitioner that approval of teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution run by respondent No.4 has been done by respondent No.3 which was forwarded to Zilla Panchayath, Chitradurga for further action. The same was approved by its letter dated 12.11.1989 vide Annexure ‘C’.
3. The petitioner further contend that though he was appointed as teacher in the aforesaid school in the year 1981, since the aforesaid school was not included in Grant-in-Aid Code, no salary grant was granted in his favour. Though the post of the petitioner has been approved for payment of salary grant-in-aid with effect from 01.11.1986, by then, he had already completed 30 years of age. Pursuant to the approval of the post, the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner had been paid as per the scale fixed by the government to the particular post. The petitioner has been paid salary with effect from 01.11.1986 as per the approval granted by respondent No.3.
4. It is further contended that the petitioner on attaining superannuation on 31.12.2014, retired from service. As per the records maintained by respondent No.4, from the date of approval of the post for grant-in- aid, i.e., as on 01.11.1986, the petitioner had completed 28 years 1 month 30 days of service as an Assistant Teacher in the said institution. The respondent No.4 has forwarded the pensionary records for approval to respondent No.2 with all relevant materials with effect from 01.01.2015 as per Annexure ‘D’.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 being one of the statutory authority for approval of pensionary benefits and fixing of pension, based on the aforesaid documents as per Annexure ‘D’ has considered the qualifying service for approval of pension at 25 years 1 month 19 days and has sanctioned the pension payable at Rs.12,425/- with effect from 01.01.2015. The approval letter has been communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 18.02.2015. The petitioner having noticed the mistake in calculation of qualifying service for the purpose of sanctioning the pension, instead of 28 years 1 month 30 days, the sanction was approved for 25 years 1 month 19 days. The petitioner also noticed that, two years of service has been left over for which period, the petitioner is entitled for time bound service benefit of two years as per the government notification dated 15.02.2012 as he was appointed after the age of 30 years. Having found the mistake the petitioner has submitted the representations dated 07.05.2015 vide Annexures ‘F’ and ‘G’ requesting respondent Nos.2 and 3 to rectify the said mistake and sanction the pensionary benefits from the date of approval of the post. Inspite of said representations, respondents Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the said representations nor passed any orders. Therefore, he is before this Court for the reliefs sought for.
6. The respondents – State Government has not filed any objections.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
8. Sri M.B.Chandra Chooda, learned counsel for petitioner while reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has contended that though the petitioner has completed 28 years 1 month 30 days of qualifying service after attaining superannuation i.e., on 31.12.2014. He is entitled to pensionary benefits for 30 years and not 25 years in terms of the government order dated 15.02.2012. Though the respondent No.4 – institution has recommended as per Annexure ‘D’, which depicts that he has worked for 28 years 1 month 30 days, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the representations nor paid the pension and they are unnecessarily dragging the matter before this Court without paying arrears of salary. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition and for a writ of mandamus as prayed for.
9. Per contra, Sri Patel D. Karegowda, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 on instructions submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 as an Assistant Teacher and the post of the petitioner was approved in the Grant-in-Aid Code for payment of salary with effect from 01.11.1986 and he retired after attaining superannuation on 31.12.2014, after completing 28 years 1 month 30 days as per his service records. The same is forwarded to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per Annexure ‘D’.
10. Smt. Shweta Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that representations made by the petitioner as per Annexures ‘F’ and ‘G’ dated 07.05.2015 addressed to the Deputy Director and Principal Accountant General (A & E) will be considered and appropriate order would be passed in accordance with law, if not already considered or disposed of. She also submits that the representations may be directed to be considered by jurisdictional Block Educational Officer.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused entire available material on record carefully.
12. It is admitted fact that the petitioner being appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school run by respondent No.4 and his post has been approved for payment of salary grant with effect from 01.11.1986, he retired on 31.12.2014 after completing qualifying service of 28 years 1 month 30 days. The main grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, though he had worked for 28 years 1 month 30 days, respondent No.2 has calculated only 25 years 1 month 19 days, which is contrary to records. The records produced by the petitioner especially at Annexure ‘D’, the respondent No.4 clearly stated that the petitioner has served 28 years 1 month 30 days as on 31.12.2014. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the competent authorities to release pension benefits after considering entire original records. While respondent No.4 has categorically stated that the petitioner has completed 28 years 1 month 30 days of qualifying service, it is unknown as to why the respondent No.2 has calculated only 25 years 1 month 19 days. When the petitioner made representations giving details of his entitlement for 28 years 1 month 30 days pensionary benefits, it is the duty of respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time. The same has not been done in the present case.
13. After going through the materials on record, it is clear that the petitioner has completed 28 years 1 month 30 days of qualifying service. It is unfair on the part of the respondents to deprive the petitioner for remaining 3 years 11 days of pensionary benefits. Before calculating pensionary benefits of an employee, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to properly consider the service records of the petitioner and grant pension from the date of the salary grant. The respondents having considered the service rendered by the employees, especially teachers they should not unnecessarily drive the petitioner before this Court after retirement for their retirement benefits. It was not the intention of our forefathers of the constitution. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 being a State authorities are bound to protect the citizens and should not harass unnecessarily without any reasons.
14. In the present case, the petitioner made representations on 07.05.2015 to rectify the mistake and to consider the pensionary benefits for 28 years 1 month 30 days instead of 25 years 1 month 19 days as calculated. The said representations ought to have considered by the authorities within a reasonable period. The same has not been done. In view of the submission made by learned Additional Government Advocate, the proper authority to direct to consider the representations of the petitioner is the jurisdictional Block Educational Officer. The petitioner is also permitted to approach jurisdictional Block Educational Officer to avoid technicality that may arise in future.
15. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. Writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 in particular, respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 07.05.2015 as per Annexures ‘F’ and ‘G’ respectively for sanctioning pension for qualifying service to be taken as 30 years 1 month 30 days and instead of 25 years as per Government Notification dated 15.02.2012, within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, if not already considered and disposed of, without dragging the petitioner further for pensionary benefits.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj