IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2983 OF 2019 (S-R) BETWEEN:
SRI. T S KALADAGI, S/O SABANNA KALADAGI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SUPDT. ENGINEER (RETD.), R/AT C/O. MALLAVVA PRAKASH GUDDAD, NO.1393, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040.
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH D C, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT LTD.(KRIDL) GRAMEENA ABHIVRUDHI BHAVANA, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.
2. THE CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER, KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. (KRIDL) GRAMEENA ABHIVRUDHI BHAVANA, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. (KRIDL) GRAMEENA ABHIVRUDHI BHAVANA, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SETTLE THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND ALL OTHER MONITORY AND SERVICE BENEFITS WHICH IS LEGALLY DUE TO THE PETITIONER ON HIS RETIREMENT ON ATTAINING THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AND THE LEGAL NOTICE VIDE ANNEXURES-B & C FORTHWITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner a retired employee of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited, a State Public Sector Undertaking is grieving before the writ Court against withholding all his terminal benefits of service by the respondents. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their panel counsel oppose the writ petition.
2. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of D.S.NAKARA vs. UNION OF INDIA, (1983) 1 SCC 305 has held that the terminal benefits such as pension payable to a retired employee constitute his property; withholding of the same is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India when no justification is shown therefor. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that there were some allegations against the petitioner and till after the same is investigated, terminal benefits cannot be released, cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the petitioner having peaceably retired from service on 31.07.2015 vide Office Order dated 31.07.2015, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A is being asked to wait indefinitely. A retired employee has a fundamental right to spend the evening of his life peacefully.
3. It is noteworthy that the very office order praises the past services rendered by the petitioner to the respondents. Neither enquiry is initiated nor contemplated against the petitioner as yet, though years have lapsed; Even the limitation of four years prescribed under Rule 214(2)(b) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules also has expired. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS vs. M.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AIR 1985 SC 356 has held that whenever the terminal benefits are unjustifiably withheld, the retired employee is entitled to interest on delayed settlement; the same view is expressed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of DR.CHANDRASHEKAR B.KAMBARA vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, ILR 2003 KAR 2125.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents to calculate and pay to the petitioner all his terminal benefits with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date the said benefits were payable, within a period of six weeks, failing which the respondents become liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. instead of 8% p.a.
After the interest is paid to the petitioner, it is open to the respondent-management to recover the same from the erring officials in accordance with law.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/