Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri C Doddappaiah on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
WA No. 151 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2024 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND
PUBLIC RELATIONS
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND
PUBLIC RELATIONS
NO.17, VARTHA SOUDHA
BHAGAVAN MAHAVEER ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by PRABHAKAR
SWETHA ...APPELLANTS
KRISHNAN
Location: High (BY SRI RUBEN JACOB, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
Court of SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
Karnataka
AND:
1. SRI C. DODDAPPAIAH
S/O. CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED 72 YEARS
RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT
KARNATAKA STATE TEMPERANCE BOARD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
WA No. 151 of 2024
6TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
NOW RESIDING AT NO.101
2ND FLOOR, SRIDEVIPARADISE
RAJAGOPAL LAYOUT
VADDARAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 061.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE TEMPERANCE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
6TH FLOOR
V.V. TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RANGANATH S. JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION NO. NO.23966/2022.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
WA No. 151 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N.V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Reuben
Jacob with learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer
Akbar for the appellant-State and its authority and learned
advocate Mr. Ranganath S. Jois for respondent No.1.
2. What is sought to be challenged by the State is the judgment
and order dated 09.10.2023 passed by learned Single Judge,
whereby the writ petition of respondent No.1-original petitioner
came to be allowed, holding the petitioner to be entitled to
pensionary benefit.
3. By order dated 30.04.2022 impugned in the writ petition, the
claim for pension of the petitioner was declined, came to be set
aside by learned Single Judge. The Karnataka State Temperance
Board as well as the State Government were directed to pay the
pension to the petitioner. The petitioner was a retired
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
Superintendent who worked in the office of respondent No.2-the
Karnataka State Temperance Board. He was appointed on
contractual basis, subsequently by the order dated 12.12.1991, the
services of the petitioner came to be regularized.
4. Learned Single Judge extracted the order of regularization to
observe from the contents thereof that the regularization sought for
by the Board was approved by the State Government. Clause (ii)
as well as Clause (i) which were in relation to the conditions
imposed for regularization and regarding probation of two years,
were noticed by learned Single Judge to come to conclusion that
the order of appointment read with the conditions incorporated
therein suggested that the petitioner was a regularly appointed
government servant and that the Karnataka Civil Services Rules
would apply more particularly, when the Board had not framed the
Rules.
5. It is to be noted that ever since the order of regularization
passed as above, the petitioner worked under the Board, was also
granted promotion as Superintendent and was further accorded the
benefit of revised pay as per the revision of pay scales as made
applicable to the government servants. In all respects, therefore,
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
the petitioner-respondent No.1 herein was treated at par with the
Government servant to be conferred all the benefits available to a
Government servant.
5.1 It is not in dispute that nearing the age of superannuation on
31.08.2011, claim was made by the petitioner for settling the
terminal benefits. Respondent No.2-Board took the view that as
there was no provision, the pension claim of the petitioner was not
liable to be entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.106/2014 before this Court.
5.2 The aforesaid petition culminated into the order dated
10.01.2022, in paragraph 7 of which it was in terms observed and
provided by the Court that "It is very clear from the said order of
this Court dated 22.11.2012 that the respondent No.2 has to
extend the pensionary benefit to the petitioner, who falls on par
with such employees of other Boards".
5.3 Despite the above order, respondent No.2-Board once again
rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension. The stand
of the Board that there was no provision for payment of pension
could hardly sustain when an unequivocal direction was given by
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
this Court in the order dated 10.01.2022 in Writ Petition No.106 of
2014 to extend the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. The said
order became final and has been holding the field.
5.4 Learned Single Judge was entirely justified in taking the view
that since the petitioner was confirmed employee of the Karnataka
State Temperance Board-respondent No.2 and there was a
specific condition applied at the time of appointment that until the
Board frames its own Rules, the provisions of the Karnataka Civil
Services Rules would be applicable and in that view, the Karnataka
Civil Services Rules would govern the services of the petitioner.
5.5 Reading the aforesaid aspect together with directions of this
Court in the order dated 10.01.2022 aforementioned, the right and
entitlement of the petitioner to receive the pension stand
established. The rejection of the claim of pension to the petitioner
by the respondent-authorities would not sustain in law.
6. The judgment and order of learned Single Judge is eminently
just, proper and legal. No interference is called for.
7. The present writ appeal is dismissed as meritless.
NC: 2024:KHC:29037-DB
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
applications would not survive and they stand accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
KPS
