The State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Padmamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 2575 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                             AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

                  W.A.No.379/2021 (S - R)

BETWEEN :

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        BY THE SECRETARY,
        DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
        AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
        M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.      THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT
        GENERAL (A & E), KARNATAKA,
        POST BOX NO.5329
        PARK HOUSE ROAD,
        BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.      THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER
        OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
        POST BOX NO.5329
        PARK HOUSE ROAD,
        BENGALURU - 560 001              ...APPELLANTS

            (BY SRI T.P.SRINIVASA, PRL. GOVT. ADV.)

AND :

1.      SMT.PADMAMMA
        W/O LATE M.SRINIVASA
        AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
        VEERANJANEYA NAGARA
        GOKUL COLLEGE ROAD
                             -2-



     FIRST MAIN, 3RD CROSS
     HAROHALLI, KOLAR

2.   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KOLAR              ...RESPONDENTS


      THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE NOTE OF
THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
13.11.2020 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.11396/2015.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                    JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal is filed by the State

challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated

13.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.11396/2015, whereby the

writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein has

been disposed of, directing the appellants to calculate

interest at 8% p.a., and disburse the same to the

respondent No.1 relating to the belated settlement of

pension amount.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the appellants submitted that the

employees of Zilla Parishads were included to pension

scheme only from 2017 vide order dated 9.5.2017.

Claim of the husband of the respondent No.1 was

included in the said order. The respondent No.1 was

awarded pension from 21.12.1999 on a mistaken

notion. Hence, realizing the same the family pension of

the respondent No.1 was stopped w.e.f., 9.5.2013.

During the pendency of the writ petition proceedings,

the arrears of family pension was settled. Accordingly,

the learned Single Judge held that the writ petition does

not survive for consideration. However, grossly erred in

awarding interest at 8% p.a., on the paid family

pension. The respondent No.1 not being entitled for any

family pension prior to passing of the order dated

9.5.2017 belated settlement of dues does not arise

much less compensating the same by way of interest.

Hence, sought for allowing the writ appeal.

3. We have carefully considered the arguments

advanced by the learned Additional Government

Advocate and perused the material on record.

4. It is not in dispute that the family pension

was paid to the respondent No.1 from 21.5.1999 and

was stopped from 9.5.2013. The said action of the

appellants in stopping the family pension was

challenged by the respondent No.1 in the writ petition.

In the notification dated 9.5.2017 (Annexure-R4) it is

contemplated that the services rendered in the erstwhile

DRDS, TBA and Zilla Parishads by the persons

absorbed under the said Rules shall, notwithstanding

anything contained in any other rules, count for the

purpose of pay, pension, leave and seniority subject to

remittance of pension contribution to the Government

as per KCSRs. As per Annexure-R5 dated 31.8.2017

(4.9.2017) the family pension has been restored to the

respondent No.1, wherein it has been categorically

observed that the restoration of family pension is

effective from the date of stopping of pension and family

pension. If the restoration of pension is effective from

the date of stopping of pension i.e., from 9.5.2013,

certainly the respondent No.1 has to be compensated

for the settlement of dues, for the said period. In the

circumstances, the learned Single Judge directing the

appellants to calculate interest at 8% p.a., and disburse

the same to the respondent No.1 cannot be held to be

unjustifiable. We do not find any jurisdictional error in

the order impugned.

Writ appeal is bereft of merits and accordingly,

stands dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the main matter,

pending IAs do not survive for consideration and are

disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE nd