The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. C N Hanumantharayappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 5007 Kant

                            1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                           AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

           WRIT PETITION NO.16765/2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
     M.S.BUILDING,
     BANGALORE-560001.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
     1ST FLOOR,
     BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
     KUNDANA HOBLI,
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
     BENGALURU - 562 110.

3.   THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
     (A&E) IN KARNATAKA,
     BENGALURU,
     P.B.NO.5329/5369,
     ANNEXURE BUILDING,
     PARK HOUSE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                           ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP.)
                                     2


AND:

SRI C.N.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
S/O LATE NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RETIRED TAHASILDAR GRADE-II,
R/A "CNH NILAYA",
LAKSHAMMA BLOCK,
DODAPIR LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
                                                       ... RESPONDENT


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPRECIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 25.03.2021 IN APPLICATION NO.5927/2020, ON
THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, AS PER ANNEXURE -A ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                 ORDER

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader.

2. The Government is before this Court being

aggrieved by the order of the tribunal rendered in

Application No.5927/2020. The writ petition is canvassed

on the short ground that the law reliance placed by the

Tribunal, on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in

Jitendra Kumar Srivastava's case and in particular the

reliance on the Bihar Pension Rules, Rule 43(b) is

inapplicable and hence the order impugned requires to go in

the light of Rule 214(A)(1).

3. The respondent had joined the services of the

State on 1.1.1990 and after due promotion and

consideration of his seniority reached the post of Tahsildar -

Grade II and that he attained superannuation on 31.1.2020,

but in the interregnum i.e., on 13.12.2019 he made a

formal application for grant of pension and gratuity, that the

same came to be rejected by an endorsement stating that

in view of the pending enquiry pensionary benefits cannot

be released. That the allegations pertains to effecting

wrong entry in the revenue records in respect of

Sy.No.115/3 of Halurampura village, Tyamagondlu hobli,

Nelamangala taluk. That an another departmental

proceedings was initiated on 10.7.2018 and the second

enquiry related to issuance of residential and income

certificate in favour of one G Shivaprasad and both the

enquiry have entrusted to the Lokayukta and have been

pending since 2017. Admittedly, the applicant retired on

31.1.2020. On the request of applicant to release his

pension the department has recommended for provisional

pension only. It is not the case of the petitioner that it has

suffered any loss enabling it to recover the said loss under

Rule 214(1)(A) and (B). Admittedly the allegations are

misdemeanor which are required to be established after a

full fledged enquiry and which in our opinion does not

require a prolonged period of five years. Be that as it may,

we deem it appropriate not to make any observations on

the length of time consumed.

4. Though the learned HCGP is right in contending

that the Bihar Pension Rules are not on a pari-materia, yet

the order of the Tribunal requires to be sustained in the

light of the judgment in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava's case.

Admittedly, it is more than two years since the applicant

retired and it is nearly five years since the enquiry was

commenced. The learned HCGP does not place any material

which would demonstrate the conclusion of the enquiry in

the near future. In fact the matter was called in the

morning session and we asked the learned HCGP if it is

possible for the petitioners to file an affidavit stipulating a

time period within which the enquiry would be concluded

and the matter is called later in the afternoon and in the

afternoon session the learned HCGP expressed his

helplessness and it is our experience on the bench that the

enquiries are unending and prolonged. As held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, the pensionary benefits are not given

gratis nor is it a free grant, but a benefit that is earned by

the employee on account of his hard work rendered during

his tenure in office. Admittedly, the applicant, even as per

the government, is a senior citizen and the legislature in its

own wisdom has deemed it necessary to frame a statute for

the safeguard of such senior citizens, but even this fact

probably has not been appreciated by the State authorities

and there is a total lack of any urgency in concluding the

enquiries. Hence we deem it appropriate and we are of the

considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of this case, the writ petition requires to be rejected in view

of the short ground of the prolonged delay in concluding the

enquiry.

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ykl CT-HR