IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.57956 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SUBRAY N BHAT, S/O. NARAYAN BHAT, AGED ABOUT PETITIONER/ YEARS, R/O. NO.216A, ‘SAMASTI’, NEAR HAVYAKA DHAMA, PERAMPALLI, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT – 576 102.
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S.SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDCUATION DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 2 . THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING, NO.4, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085.
3 . DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
4 . DR. T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION SYNDICATE HOUSE, MANIPAL-576 119, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY …PETITIONER 5 . PRINCIPAL, DR. T.M.A. PAI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (A UNIT OF DR. T.M.A. PAI EDUCATION) KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI-576102 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
BY SRI. M.RAVINDRA KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.19.8.2013 PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-AB AND ORDER DTD.24.8.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-AD PASSED BY THE R1; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner a Mathematics lecturer working in fifth respondent College is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the Government orders dated 19.08.2013 & 24.08.2013 respectively at Annexures - AB & AD which in effect deny approval to his voluntary retirement and consequently the pensionary benefits as well. After service of notice the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel oppose the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that, petitioner needs to be granted relief because:
(a) Rule 285 of KCSR provides for the grant of Retiring Pension for an employee who is permitted to take voluntary retirement from service, one of the pre-conditions being 15 years of qualifying service; under the provisions of this Rule whose invokability is not in dispute, petitioner had applied for voluntary retirement on 17.09.2008; the Management of the respondent-college and also the official respondent - Director had recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of VRS;
(b) the contention of the official respondents that petitioner’s claim for VRS reached them on 04.12.2018 i.e., a day after the Grant-in-Aid to the respondent – College was withdrawn i.e., w.e.f. 03.12.2008 and therefore, grant of ex post facto approval to the VRS is legally impermissible cannot be countenanced because, the withdrawal of Grant–in-Aid was stayed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.1019-1029/2009 which came to be disposed off on 21.06.2011; during the said period, the Grant–in–Aid continued and further, the amount of Aid given to the College during the stay period has not been recovered, even when the withdrawal order was not invalidated by the Court; thus, the subject institution continued to be an aided institution and therefore, the alleged delay of one day in petitioner’s VRS application reaching the respondents pales into insignificance, apart from the said contention being factually incorrect; and, (c) petitioner had approached this Court earlier in W.P.No.30749/2012 which came to be disposed off vide judgment dated 12.09.2012, a copy whereof is at Annexure-V whereby, the respondents were directed to consider his VRS application within two months; the compliance having not been done, petitioner had filed CCC No.944/2013 and only thereafter, an Endorsement dated 19.08.2013 was given rejecting petitioner’s representation; consequently, the said case came to be dropped; the present writ petition is the third round of litigation which could have been avoided had the official respondents been little fair & vigilant; even here, the legitimate claim of a teacher is sought to be defeated by taking up unconscionable & legally untenable contentions.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; impugned orders are quashed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 to grant approval to the petitioner’s VRS application treating the 6th respondent-College continued to be an aided institution till 21.06.2011 and to grant all consequential benefits to him within an outer limit of four months.
If this mandate is not obeyed within the above prescribed period, the official respondents jointly shall pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and that the same may be recovered from the erring officials concerned, in accordance with law.
It is open to the official respondents to solicit any documents/information from the petitioner or the respondent-College as are necessary for complying with the direction; however, in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked.
Now, no costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS