Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri C Doddappaiah on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
WA No. 151 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2024 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND
PUBLIC RELATIONS
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND
PUBLIC RELATIONS
NO.17, VARTHA SOUDHA
BHAGAVAN MAHAVEER ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by PRABHAKAR
SWETHA ...APPELLANTS
KRISHNAN
Location: High (BY SRI RUBEN JACOB, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
Court of SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
Karnataka
AND:
1. SRI C. DODDAPPAIAH
S/O. CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED 72 YEARS
RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT
KARNATAKA STATE TEMPERANCE BOARD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
WA No. 151 of 2024
6TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
NOW RESIDING AT NO.101
2ND FLOOR, SRIDEVIPARADISE
RAJAGOPAL LAYOUT
VADDARAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 061.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE TEMPERANCE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
6TH FLOOR
V.V. TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RANGANATH S. JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION NO. NO.23966/2022.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
WA No. 151 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N.V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA) Heard learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Reuben Jacob with learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the appellant-State and its authority and learned advocate Mr. Ranganath S. Jois for respondent No.1.
2. What is sought to be challenged by the State is the judgment and order dated 09.10.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of respondent No.1-original petitioner came to be allowed, holding the petitioner to be entitled to pensionary benefit.
3. By order dated 30.04.2022 impugned in the writ petition, the claim for pension of the petitioner was declined, came to be set aside by learned Single Judge. The Karnataka State Temperance Board as well as the State Government were directed to pay the pension to the petitioner. The petitioner was a retired -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB WA No. 151 of 2024 Superintendent who worked in the office of respondent No.2-the Karnataka State Temperance Board. He was appointed on contractual basis, subsequently by the order dated 12.12.1991, the services of the petitioner came to be regularized.
4. Learned Single Judge extracted the order of regularization to observe from the contents thereof that the regularization sought for by the Board was approved by the State Government. Clause (ii) as well as Clause (i) which were in relation to the conditions imposed for regularization and regarding probation of two years, were noticed by learned Single Judge to come to conclusion that the order of appointment read with the conditions incorporated therein suggested that the petitioner was a regularly appointed government servant and that the Karnataka Civil Services Rules would apply more particularly, when the Board had not framed the Rules.
5. It is to be noted that ever since the order of regularization passed as above, the petitioner worked under the Board, was also granted promotion as Superintendent and was further accorded the benefit of revised pay as per the revision of pay scales as made applicable to the government servants. In all respects, therefore, -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB WA No. 151 of 2024 the petitioner-respondent No.1 herein was treated at par with the Government servant to be conferred all the benefits available to a Government servant.
5.1 It is not in dispute that nearing the age of superannuation on 31.08.2011, claim was made by the petitioner for settling the terminal benefits. Respondent No.2-Board took the view that as there was no provision, the pension claim of the petitioner was not liable to be entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.106/2014 before this Court.
5.2 The aforesaid petition culminated into the order dated 10.01.2022, in paragraph 7 of which it was in terms observed and provided by the Court that "It is very clear from the said order of this Court dated 22.11.2012 that the respondent No.2 has to extend the pensionary benefit to the petitioner, who falls on par with such employees of other Boards".
5.3 Despite the above order, respondent No.2-Board once again rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension. The stand of the Board that there was no provision for payment of pension could hardly sustain when an unequivocal direction was given by -6- NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB WA No. 151 of 2024 this Court in the order dated 10.01.2022 in Writ Petition No.106 of 2014 to extend the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. The said order became final and has been holding the field. 5.4 Learned Single Judge was entirely justified in taking the view that since the petitioner was confirmed employee of the Karnataka State Temperance Board-respondent No.2 and there was a specific condition applied at the time of appointment that until the Board frames its own Rules, the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules would be applicable and in that view, the Karnataka Civil Services Rules would govern the services of the petitioner. 5.5 Reading the aforesaid aspect together with directions of this Court in the order dated 10.01.2022 aforementioned, the right and entitlement of the petitioner to receive the pension stand established. The rejection of the claim of pension to the petitioner by the respondent-authorities would not sustain in law.
6. The judgment and order of learned Single Judge is eminently just, proper and legal. No interference is called for.
7. The present writ appeal is dismissed as meritless. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB WA No. 151 of 2024 In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14