Karnataka High Court
S.P.B. Nanjanna vs Principal Secretary on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45055-DB
WA No. 459 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 459 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. S.P.B. NANJANNA,
S/O PUTTANNA,
AGED 72 YEARS,
RETIRED AS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER,
IN THE DIRECTORATE OF
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
R/AT No.84, 20TH CROSS, ITTAMADAGU,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BANGALORE-560085.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P. M. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Location: High URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Court of GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
Karnataka VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
9TH FLOOR, V. V. TOWER,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45055-DB
WA No. 459 of 2024
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14.02.2024 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
PASSED IN WP No.1450/2017 (S-RES) AND THERE BY ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. P.M. Nayak for the appellant
and learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for the
respondents.
2. This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the High Court Act,
1961 by the writ appellant aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2024
in W.P.No.1450 of 2017.
NC: 2024:KHC:45055-DB
3. The brief facts as pleaded are that, the appellant was
appointed as Assistant Project Officer on a contract basis on
25.06.1991. He was appointed as Project Officer on a contract
basis under the Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY)
scheme on 01.12.1997. The appellant was absorbed into service
under Karnataka Municipalities (Absorption of the Employees
under the Scheme of Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rozagar Yojana in
the Urban Local Bodies) Rules 2005 (for short Rules 2005). The
appellant continued in the service as such and retired from service
on 31.03.2012.
4. The appellant filed a representation to consider service
periods rendered on a contract basis for service benefits. The
representation is rejected by an endorsement dated 16.09.2016
impugned in the writ petition.
5. Learned Single Judge while referring to Rule 4(ii) of Rules
2005 rejected the writ petition concluding that the appellant is not
entitled to the relief as prayed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. P.M. Naik, appearing for the
appellant, submits that Rule 4(ii) restricts the previous service
NC: 2024:KHC:45055-DB
rendered, thereby denies the pension. As such, Rule 4(ii) is
unconstitutional.
6.1 Learned advocate further submits that the impugned Rule
4(ii) is in violation of Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India.
6.2 It is submitted that the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958
provides counting of previous service for pension. As such, the
2005 Rules impose restrictions that are not sustainable and
discriminatory.
7. Learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish submits that
the appellant was absorbed into service as per Rules 2005. The
service conditions and the pension provision is governed by said
Rules. It is submitted that after accepting the absorption as per
the Rules and having retired from service, it is not open to the
appellant to contend that part of the Rules is unconstitutional.
8. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for
the parties, factual aspects are not in dispute. The appellant was
appointed as Assistant Project Officer on 25.06.1991 and as
Project Officer on 01.12.1997 on a contract basis. The appellant
was absorbed into service as per Rules 2005. Rule 4(ii) was in the
NC: 2024:KHC:45055-DB
statute, and the absorption is subject to the Rules. The appellant
continued in the service and retired on 31.03.2012.
9. The representation was made only on 28.01.2015. The
representation is rejected by endorsement impugned, as per Rules
2005. Rule 4(ii) of Rules 2005 reads as,
" 4(ii) The service rendered by the persons
absorbed under these rules prior to the
commencement of these rules shall not count
for the purposes of leave, pay, pension,
seniority and grant of promotion under time
bound advancement scheme or for grant of
selection time scale of pay."
10. Rule 4(ii) imposes a statutory bar to count service rendered
prior to the commencement of Rules for pension. In light of the
specific statutory bar, the appellant is not entitled to consider the
period of service rendered prior to commencement of the Rules i.e.
2005.
11. The appellant has raised grounds challenging the
constitutional validity of Rule 4(ii). As can be noticed from the
order of the learned Single Judge, the prayer for constitutional
validity is not pursued. When the appellant has challenged the
constitutional validity and has not pursued the same in the writ
NC: 2024:KHC:45055-DB
petition; it is not open to raise grounds in that regard in the appeal.
In that view of the matter, the contentions regarding the
constitutional validity need no adjudication by the Court in the
present appeal.
12. Learned Single Judge has rejected the petition in the light of
Rule 4(ii), wherein a specific statutory bar is imposed to consider
the service rendered prior to commencement of the Rules under
which the appellant is absorbed. The conclusion reached by the
learned Single Judge is on the statutory provision subject to which
the appellant accepted the absorption.
13. Learned Single Judge has assigned another pertinent reason
in not entertaining the writ petition i.e., the delay. The appellant
was absorbed in the year 2005, retired in the year 2012,
representation was made in the year 2015, endorsement is issued
in the year 2016 and the writ petition is preferred in the year 2017.
There is no explanation offered for not approaching the Court
within a reasonable period. The appellant, having accepted the
absorption subject to Rule 4(ii), it is not open to raise any grievance
to the contrary, after retirement from service.
NC: 2024:KHC:45055-DB
14. For the preceding reasons, no error can be booked from the
order of learned Single Judge warranting interference. Appeal
dismissed.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
