Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chikkalingaiah. T vs The Karnataka Housing Board on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13794
WP No. 8618 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.8618 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHIKKALINGAIAH T.
S/O THIBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RETIRED SENIOR WORKS INSPECTOR,
L.I.G. HOUSE NO.10, KHB COLONY,
2ND STAGE, OOTY ROAD,
NANJANAGUDU,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TIMMANNA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
REP. BY THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER,
CAUVERY BHAWAN,
Digitally signed by K.G. ROAD,
VANDANA S
BENGALURU - 560 009.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
2. THE MANAGER (FINANCE)
THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13794
WP No. 8618 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFIX THE PENSION AND
RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER AFTER ADDING 5
YEARS OF SERVICE WRONGLY DEDUCTED BY THE
RESPONDENTS; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFIX THE
PENSION AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER
GRANTING 2 YEARS OF ADDITIONAL SERVICE FOR
CALCULATION OF PENSION UNDER THE CIRCULAR DATED 02ND
JULY, 2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND THEREAFTER TO
SANCTION ALL SERVICE BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER; AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking following relief:
"i) Direct the Respondents to refix the pension and
retirement benefits of the petitioner after adding 5
years of service wrongly deducted by the
respondent
ii) Direct the Respondents to refix the pension and
retirement benefits of the petitioner granting 2
years of additional service for calculation of pension
under the Circular dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure-H)
and thereafter to sanction all service benefits to the
petitioner."
2. The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner
was initially appointed as temporary Mestri and accordingly
reported for duty in the respondent No.1-Board on 01st
NC: 2024:KHC:13794
October, 1976. The Government by order dated 31st October,
1979, designated the post as Junior Works Inspector and by
order dated, 04th October, 1985, the order is modified and
designated the post with effect from 01st October, 1976. The
petitioner along with similarly placed workers was absorbed in a
regular establishment on 27th February, 1991. The petitioner
after undisturbed service of 31 years, 8 months and 29 days of
service was attained age of superannuation on 30th June, 2008.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is of two fold. Firstly,
the petitioner contends that the respondents while determining
the pension, have wrongly deducted five years of service by
quoting Rule 248A(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (For
short, hereinafter referred to as 'KCS Rules'), which is contrary
to law and rules envisaged in KCS Rules. The pension
determined by counting the service of the petitioner as 26½
years is arbitrary and unjustified.
4. The second limb of argument is that the age of
retirement was enhanced from 58 to 60 years and those
employees who attained the age of superannuation on par with
the petitioner were granted the benefit of counting two years of
NC: 2024:KHC:13794
service to determine the pension. The petitioner alleges that
there is a discrimination insofar as the petitioner is concerned
in determining the pension.
5. The respondent-Board on receipt of notice have
appeared and filed statement of objections. Insofar as the first
contention of the petitioner in respect of deduction of five years
of service to compute the number of years of service put in by
the petitioner to determine the pension payable would point out
that the deduction of five years of service was strictly in
compliance of Rule 248A(2) of the KCS Rules. By filing a memo
today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-
Board has pointed out that, even in the judgment rendered by
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of RANGAPPA vs.
THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER made
in Writ Petition No.8648 of 2003 decided on 20th September,
2006, on which the petitioner is placing reliance, Rule 248(2) of
KCS Rules is in fact given effect to and the pension is
determined by deducting five years of service as indicated in
the Circular. The calculation made in the said judgment is
placed on record. Therefore he would point out that, contrary
to Rule, the petitioner cannot insist to add five years of service
NC: 2024:KHC:13794
while computing pension. The claim of the petitioner is not
substantiated and supported by any Rule and therefore, he
would contend that the first prayer of petitioner relating to
adding of five years of service cannot be accepted.
6. Insofar as re-fixation of pension by taking note of
enhancement of age limit from 58 to 60 years, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Board would point out that the
authorities will reconsider the prayer of the petitioner in this
regard.
7. Having the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I
have carefully examined the relevant Rule 248A(2) of the KCS
Rules. It would be useful to extract Rule 248A(2) of the
Karnataka Civil Services Rules, which read as follows:
"248A(2):- Persons borne on the work-charged
establishments of Government on time-scales of pay who
were in Service on 1st July 1978 and have been or are
absorbed in regular pensionable service under
Government after that date shall count their work-
charged service to the extent indicated below, for
purposes of pension and gratuity:
(i) For the first ten years - 50% of service.
(ii) For the remaining period - Full service."
NC: 2024:KHC:13794
8. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that the deduction of five years service in terms
of Rule 248A of the KCS Rules was totally un-warranted, cannot
be acceded. The judgment on which the petitioner placed
reliance in the case of RANGAPPA (supra), the respondents
while determining pension have applied the prevailing Rule
248A(2) and five years of service was excluded while counting
the service of the petitioner in the said case also. In absence
of any specific rule to counter the deduction of five years by the
respondents in terms of Rule 248A(2), no indulgence can be
granted to the petitioner.
9. Insofar as re-fixation of pension by taking cognizance
of enhancement of age of retirement from 58 to 60 years, as
there is no serious contest and there is a specific claim by the
petitioner that the similarly placed employees who had retired
before enhancement of age of retirement were extended the
benefit, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is also
entitled to claim the benefit extended to similarly placed
employees. Hence, the claim of the petitioner in respect of re-
fixation of pension is also required to be considered
accordingly, to avoid discrimination among the employees who
NC: 2024:KHC:13794
are similarly placed. On this limited point, this Court is of the
view that the limited directions have to be issued to the
respondent-Authorities. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition is allowed in-part;
2) Respondents are hereby directed to re-fix the
pension of the petitioner by granting additional
two years of service for calculation of pension
in terms of Circular dated 02nd July, 2010
(Annexure-H) and accordingly, sanction all
service benefits to the petitioner;
3) This exercise shall be accomplished within an
outer limit of three months from the date of
receipt of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE
ARK
