Karnataka High Court
Sri S Nagarajan vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.5539 OF 2013 (S-RES)
IN
W.P. No.19089 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. NAGARAJAN
S/O LATE SRI. S.G. SRINIVASACHAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.72, I CROSS, ANANDA NAGAR
MARATHAHALLI POST
BANGALORE 560 037.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADV., FOR
MR. M.S. PARTHASARTHI, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION AND EX-OFFICIO
SECRETARY/TREASURER
KARNATAKA STATE TEACHERS'
2
BENEFIT FUND
"SHIKSHAKARA SADAN"
K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19089/2012
(S-RES) DATED 05/04/2013.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is directed against an order
dated 05.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge by
which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been
dismissed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the Karnataka State Teachers Benefit Fund
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Fund' for short) is a society
registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The
aforesaid Society has been constituted with an object to
look after the interest of teachers and government schools,
aided government schools and private schools. The
appellant is an employee of the Fund.
3. The Secretary of the employees Association of
the Fund submitted a letter dated 03.01.1981, in which
request was made to the government to extend all the
benefits such as pension, death cum retirement gratuity,
family pension etc. to the officials working in the Fund at
par with government servants. Thereupon, by an order
dated 15.04.1981, the benefits as claimed by the
Association of Employees were extended to the employees
including the appellant.
4. It is the case of the appellant that the fund in
its meeting held on 26.03.1988 had resolved to adopt the
group gratuity scheme of life insurance Corporation of
India with effect from 01.04.1987 in respect of employees
of the frund and to pay past gratuity of Rs.13,669.85/- as
on November, 1987 and annual premiums of
Rs.2600.87/- thereby transferring the implications to the
life insurance corporation of India. However, the State
Committee of the Fund passed a resolution on
27.03.2012, by which the payment of amount of death
cum retirement gratuity was restricted to an amount,
which was payable to the government servants and the
excess amount was directed to be withheld.
5. It is the further case of the appellant that even
though a sum of Rs.5,74,996/ was released by the LIC,
the fund in terms of the resolution dated 27.03.2012
resolved to make payment of a sum of Rs.2,77,200/- only,
which is an amount of death cum retirement gratuity
payable to a government employee. The appellant
thereupon filed a writ petition in which validity of the
resolution dated 27.03.2012 was assailed. The said writ
petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge
by an order dated 05.04.2013. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the appellant is entitled to the amount in question in
view of Government Order dated 15.04.1981. It is also
submitted that fund is required to pay atleast 25% of the
amount of premium to the Life Insurance Corporation. It
is also urged that no circumstances are available to forfeit
the fund and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
appellant before withdrawing the benefit of the fund.
Therefore, the question of affording an opportunity of
hearing to the appellant does not arise.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate has submitted that the resolution
dated 27.03.2012 is in consonance with the government
order dated 15.04.1981 and the appellant cannot claim
any amount in excess of the amount payable to a
government employee on account of death cum retirement
gratuity.
8. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. The relevant
extract of the order dated 15.04.1981 reads as under:
The Secretary / Treaurer, Karnataka
Students Welfare Fund and Teacher's benefit
fund, Bangalore, in his letter referred to above
has stated that the State Council or Karantaka
State Students' Welfare Fund which met on
01.05.1979 has resolved that Government may
be requested to extend all the benefits such as
pension, D.C.R.G., Family Pension etc/ to the
officials working in the Karnataka State
(Students Welfare Fund and Karnataka State
Teachers Benefit Fund, on par with
Government Servants.
As such has requested Government to
accord sanction for extension of benefits such
as pension, D.C.R.G, Family pension etc. to the
officials working of the said funds and also to
make these benefits applicable to those
officials who will be employed hereafter if
required by the funds authorities.
9. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid order, it is
evident that an employee of the Fund is entitled to
pension and an amount on account of death cum
retirement gratuity at par with government servants. By
the aforesaid order, the benefit was conferred on the
appellant also. The appellant is bound by the order dated
15.04.1981 and is entitled to an amount of death cum
retirement gratuity, which is payable to a government
servant. Admittedly, by a resolution dated 27.03.2012, the
appellant has been paid an amount of Rs.2,77,200/- on
account of death cum retirement gratuity which is payable
to a government employee. The contention that the
government order dated 15.04.1981 does not restrict the
benefit of death cum retirement gratuity as is admissible
to a government servant is misconceived. The aforesaid
order is required to be read in its entirety and in the
context of the demand made by the employees themselves.
The appellant is bound by the order dated 15.04.1981.
Admittedly, the appellant has not made payment of any
premium on account of group gratuity scheme. The
resolution dated 27.03.2012 is in consonance with the
government order dated 15.04.1981.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
