Karnataka High Court
Sri Lokanath Shetty vs The Principal Accountant General (A And ... on 21 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
WP No. 3698 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.3698 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.LOKANATH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
S/O LATE MANJAPPA SHETTY
R/AT DOOR NO.25-23-1539
LOKNATH SHETTY COMPOUND
JAPPU BAPPAL 3RD CROSS
NEAR M.C.C BANK, NANDIGUDDA
JEPPU, VTC MANGALORE
POST: KANKANADY
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575002
BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN
NOT CLAIMED
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
signed by
ALBHAGYA AND:
Location:
HIGH 1. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT
COURT OF
GENERAL (A & E)
KARNATAKA
INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS
DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA
P.B.NO.5329/5369
PARK HOUSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 203
2. THE CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR
GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
WP No. 3698 of 2024
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
PORT NO 9, DEEN DAYAL UPADYAY MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 124
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. BANK OF BARODA
GROUND FLOOR
EXCEL MISCHIEF MALL
KSR ROAD, HAMPANAKATTA
MANGALORE - 575001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R.1 AND R.2;
SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R.3;
SRI.NAGARAJ DAMODAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DTD 07.06.2023, NO. BOB/
MANGAL/GEN/PEN/43/2023-24 ISSUED BY R-4 BANK
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the
communication issued by respondent No.4 declining to
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
extend benefit of 20% additional quantum of pension
w.e.f 09.02.2021.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under;
The petitioner is a retired State Government
Employee. Petitioner claims that he was born on
10.02.1942 and has attained age of superannuation on
31.01.1994. The petitioner contends that he has
completed 79 years on 09.02.2021 and therefore, he has
entered into 80 years on 10.02.2021. It is in this
background, representation was submitted to respondent
No.4 - Bank to extend benefit of 20% additional quantum
of pension in terms of the Government Order dated
13.10.2010. Respondent No.4 having communicated to
respondent No.1 sent a communication to the District
Treasury Office, Mangalore. Respondent No.4, in turn,
received an endorsement from the concerned Authority
indicating that petitioner is not eligible as the petitioner
had not completed 80 years as on 09.02.2021. Assailing
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
the impugned endorsement, the petitioner is before this
Court.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4
and learned AGA.
4. The controversy that is raised in the present
captioned writ petition is no more res-integra. The
Co-ordinate Bench in unreported judgment
W.P.No.18753/2011 (S-R) has given quietus to the said
issue. The paragraph No.6 would be relevant and the
same reads as under;
"6. The 6th Central Pay Commissioner
made recommendations for modification of
Rules regulating pension/retirement/death
/service/gratuity/family pension/ disability
pension and ex-gratia lump sum compensation.
Accordingly by Act 23 of 2009 Section 17(B) of
the Act came to be inserted providing for
payment of additional quantum of pension as
specified in the table referred to above. A
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
reading of Section 17(B) of the Act specifies that
from 80 years to less that 85 years a retired
Judge is entitled for additional quantum at 20%
of basic pension. The object of inserting Section
17(B) of the Act is to provide additional
quantum of pension to mitigate the old age
sickness and dependency. This is a social piece
of legislation. An aged man shall enjoy the
benefit under Section 17(b) of the Act at the
earliest point of time. the words 'From 80 years
to less than 85 years' in Section 17(B) of the
Act manifestly makes it clear that it is from the
commencing point of 80th year a retired Judge is
entitled for 20% of additional quantum of
pension for a period of 5 years, that is, up to
the end of 84th year. Therefore this benefit is to
be extended from first day of 80th year and not
from the first day of 81st year. Hence, the
impugned endorsement is contrary to the object
of insertion of Section 17(B) of the Act. On this
ground, the impugned endorsement Annexure-B
is liable to be quashed."
5. Referring to 17(B) of the High Court Judges
(Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1994 and also
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
taking cognizance of the 2009 amendment, this Court was
of the view that retired Judges are entitled for 20% of
additional quantum of pension and commencing point
would be 80 years of a retired Judge.
6. It would be useful to refer to the Government
Notification dated 13.10.2010, which would have a direct
bearing on the claim made by the petitioner. The relevant
portion reads as under;
"In G.O dated 13.10.2010 read above,
sanction was accorded to grant the Additional
Pension/Family Pension to the State
Government Pensioners/Family Pensioners,
who have retired or died while in service
prior to 01.07.1993 and who are above 80
years in the following rates, w.e.f.
01.04.2006:
Age of Pensioners/Family Additional Pension /
Pensioners as on Family Pension from
01.04.2006 01.04.2006
From 80 years to 20% of basic pension/
less than 85 years family pension
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
30% of basic
From 85 years to
pension / family
less than 90 years
pension
50% of basic
Above 90 years pension/ family
pension
7. On examination of the table indicated in the
Government Order dated 13.10.2010, it is clearly evident
that from 80 years to less than 85 years, the retired
Government Servant is entitled for 20% of basic pension
of family pension as the case may be.
8. If these significant details are looked into,
then I am of the view that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are
bound to consider petitioner's claim of additional 20% of
basic pension in the light of the Government order dated
13.10.2010.
9. In that view of the matter, I am of the view
that the petitioner has a legal right to seek benefit of 20%
of the basic pension as he had entered into 80 years as on
09.02.2023.
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
10. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to
pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereby
directed to treat the writ petition as
representation.
(iii) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereby
directed to extend the benefit of 20% additional
quantum of pension from 09.02.2021 in terms
of the Government Order dated 13.10.2010 as
per Annexure-C.
(iv) While considering representation,
respondent Nos.1 to 3 are bound to take
cognizance of the judgment rendered by the
Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case though it
pertains to a Former Judge of this Court and
shall also take cognizance of the judgment
passed by this Court in W.P.No.105189/2014.
NC: 2024:KHC:7297
(v) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall decide the
representation in the light of the observations
made supra within an outer limit of six weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
(vi) Pending applications, if any, are also
disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
