Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Mrs Swarnalatha V Kini vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|17 December, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.26674-26676 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1 . MRS. SWARNALATHA.V.KINI, W/O VAMANA KINI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RETIRED OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, CANARA FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, MANGALORE. D.K., PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 6-150, R-23 MOODALAGIRI, J.B.LOBO ROAD, V CROSS, KOTTARA CHOWKI, MANGALORE-575 006.
2 . MR. P.RADHAKRISHNA SHENOY, S/O SANJEEVA SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED SECONDE DIVISION ASSISTANT, CANARA FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, MANGALORE. D.K.
PRESENTLY R/AT RITA COMPOUND, URVA MARIGUDI TEMPLE ROAD, MANGALORE-575 006.
3 . MR. KRISHNAPPA, S/O M. MONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED ATTENDER, CANARA FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, MANGALORE. D.K.
PRESENTLY R/AT NEAR S.L.V. TEMPLE MULKI, MULKI VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. – 575 005.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHWAJITH SHETTY.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA (HIGHER EDUCATION), EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001.
2 . PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA (HIGHER EDUCATION), EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560 001.
3 . THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD BANGALORE - 01.
4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION UNIVERSITY COLLEGE PERMISES MANGALORE-D.K. 575 001.
5 . THE PRINCIPAL CANARA FIRST GRADE COLLEGE MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. 575001.
6 . ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (A & E) BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
R-5 & R-6 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE PETITIONERS PENSION CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL EMOLUMENTS DRAWN BY THEM INCLUDING THE INCREMENTS & PROMOTIONS FOR NON-GRANT PERIOD PERMITTING THEM TO COMPUTE 1/3RD OF PENSION & FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CALCULATE THE ARREARS OF PENSION TO BE PAID TO THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR RETIREMENT TILL DATE & OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF AMOUNTS ARE DUE TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners who claim to be the pensioners are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court with the following prayer:
“a) Issue writ of Mandamus or any writ directing the respondents to pay the petitioners pension calculated on the basis of actual emoluments drawn by them including the increments and promotions for non-grant period permitting them to compute 1/3rd of pension and further direct the respondents to calculate the arrears of pension to be paid to the petitioners from the date of their retirement till date and other consequential benefits with interest at 6% per annum from the date the amounts are due till the date of payment.”
Sri. Ramesh V.Jois, learned AGA fairly submits that petitioners have already given their representations and the legal notice in terms of Annexures to the writ petition and that there would be no much difficulty in considering the same, if the period is specified by this Court, keeping in view the judgment dated 13.10.2006 in cognate W.P.No.19431 of 2005 (S-R) c/w W.P.No.14676 of 2001 (S-R) c/w W.P.No.81 of 2004 (S-RES), a copy whereof is at Annexure-B. This stand of the respondents is fair and reasonable.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed off by directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider petitioners representation at Annexures- C & E and recall notice at Annexure-F within a period of three months and to inform them individually the result thereof such consideration without fail.
It is open to the university to solicit any information or document from the side of petitioner as are required for such consideration, however, subject to the rider that in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked.
All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mrs Swarnalatha V Kini vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
17 December, 2019
Judges
  • Krishna S Dixit