Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Suresh Tapalyagol So Yellapa on 20 February, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4046-DB
WP No. 101012 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 101012 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE),
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL &
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
NEXT TO RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT
1ST BATTALION,
KSRP, BENGALURU-560025.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR 4. THE COMMANDANT,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI 3RD BATTALION, KARNATAKA STATE
Date: 2024.02.24 INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,
10:55:47 +0530 MALAPRABHA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SURESH TAPALYAGOL,
S/O. YELLAPA, AGE: 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE,
PC NO.543, KARNATAKA STATE
INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCES,
3RD BATTALION, DHARWAD,
WORKING AT SUVARNA VIDHANA SOUDHA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4046-DB
WP No. 101012 of 2024
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590020,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.85,
VITHAL NAGAR, HONIYAL,
BELAGAVI-591103.
2. SRI. HANAMANT TUMMARAMATTI,
S/O. SUBHAS, AGE: 47 YEARS,
WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE,
PC NO1469, KARNATAKA STATE
INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCES,
3RD BATTALION, DHARWAD,
WORKING AT ALAMATTI DAM,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT-586201,
R/AT: VIDYA NAGAR, MAHALINGPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
3. SRI. MALLAPPA TONNI,
S/O. PANDAPPA, AGE: 53 YEARS,
WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE,
PC NO.313, KARNATAKA STATE
INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCES,
3RD BATTALION, DHARWAD,
WORKING AT: APSU, AIRPORT,
SAMBRA, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591124,
R/AT: PLOT NO.21, H.NO.1362,
SAI COLONY, PANT NAGAR,
BALEKUNDRI BELAGAVI,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591103.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI BENCH
IN APPLICATION NOS.10946 TO 10948/2021 DATED 20.12.2021
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, K V ARAVIND, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4046-DB
WP No. 101012 of 2024
ORDER
This petition by State against the order passed by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short
Tribunal), Belagavi in Application No.10946 to 10948/2021
dated 20.12.2021, wherein the application filed by the
respondents herein has been allowed.
2. The applicants before the Tribunal are
respondents in this writ petition. Respondents were
discharged from military service. The respondents were
appointed as Police Constables and posted to Karnataka
State Security Force. Their pay in the newly appointed
post was fixed in accordance with the Rule 41(C) of the
KCSRs. After recommendation of 6th Central Pay
Commission(CPC), the pay scales of the respondents was
revised and last pay drawn by them at the time of
retirement stood enhanced. The respondents filed
representation with the petitioners to protect their last
basic pay drawn in military services in accordance with
Rule 41 of the KCSRs. The petitioners by endorsement
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4046-DB
dated 07.08.2021 and 19.01.2021 insisted surrendering
the entire dearness allowance on pension to the Central
Government.
3. On challenge to the said endorsement, the
Tribunal held by its order dated 20.12.2021, that Rule
41(C) of the KCSR does not require the Government
servants appointed under ex-servicemen quota to
surrender their dearness allowance drawn on military
pension.
4. Shri. G. K. Hiregoudar, learned Government
advocate appearing for the petitioner-State by reiterating
the grounds urged, contends that the order passed by the
Tribunal is not sustainable.
5. This Court in WP No.100549/2022 dated
28.08.2023 in the case of The State of Karnataka and
others Vs Sri. Hanumappa Yallappa Shantageri and
others while examining the similar issue involving
interpretation of Rule 41(C) of the KCSR has held that
Rule 41 (C) does not postulate requirement of
surrendering of dearness allowance paid on the pension in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4046-DB
the absence of any such provision/requirement. The
controversy involved in the present petition is similar to
the issue decided in the judgment referred supra. On
careful examination of the facts of the present case, we
are of the view that the issue raised in this writ petition is
no more res-integra. The controversy is answered in WP
No.100549/2022. As this controversy is already answered
in the above referred judgment by this Court, no ground is
made out to take different view or to interfere with the
order of the Tribunal.
6. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKM
