Karnataka High Court
Basavarajappa S/O Sangappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 19 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8684
WP No. 203217 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 203217 OF 2022 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA
AGED: ABOUT 84 YEARS,
FORMER PATTEDAR/PATAWARI,
GOOGLE VILLAGE,
TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN M MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Digitally signed by REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
RENUKA
Location: HIGH 5TH FLOOR,
COURT OF MS BUILDING,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT
GENERAL (A AND E),
POST BOX NO. 5329/5369,
ANNEX BUILDING,
PART HOUSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR DISTRICT,
RAICHUR-584101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8684
WP No. 203217 of 2022
4. THE TAHSILDAR
DEVADURGA TALUKA,
RAICHUR DISTRICT-584111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.01.2021
IN NO. PV13/CH-4/209719773/1017173194/P/18/10/206200
VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
Captioned petition is filed by an Ex-Shanubhoga, who
is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 15.01.2021
bearing No.PV13/CH-
4/2091719773/1017173194/P/18/10/206200 issued by
2nd respondent, declining pension on the ground that
petitioner has not put in a qualifying service of 10 years,
which is a pensionable period and therefore, is not entitled
for weightage under Section 247(A) of KCSR, 1957.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8684
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for the State.
3. The issue relating to Shanubhoga claiming
pensionary benefits is dealt by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in an unreported judgment bearing WP
No.207602/2015. Paragraph Nos.7 to 11 would be
relevant and the same are culled out, which read as
under:
"7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an Ex-
Shanbhogue. The only disqualification pointed out by
the 2nd respondent is that, petitioner has not
completed the minimum qualifying service of 10
years. Indisputably, the petitioner had the qualifying
service of 9 years 3 months and 15 days. At this
juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the Government
Order dated 28.11.1979, which runs thus;
ORDER
"After careful examination of various aspects about
the granting of pension to the Ex Shanbhogues who
were absorbed on recruitment as Village Accountants
and retired, Government are pleased to order a
special case under rule 235 and also under Rule 7 of
KCSRs in relaxation of provision of exception below
Note 3 to 6 Rule 237 which is as follows:-
a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8684
b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c) In cases not covered by (b) above, the service
from 1-2-1963 to 31-3-1964 rendered by Ex-
Shanbhogues continued as Village Accountants be
added to the Service rendered by them from 1-4-
1964, as service qualifying for pension."
8. This Government Order is further modified by
order dated 26.4.2013 which runs thus;
"ಮುಂದುವ ೆದು....'ಎರಡ ೇ ಕಂ ೆ ಾ ಂಚ ೆ ಅಹ ೆ ೆ ಗ ಪ ದ
ಕ ಷ! ಅಹ ಾ"ಾಯಕ $ೇ%ೆಯನು' (ೊಂ*ರದ ಪ+ಗ,ತ ಾ.ಮ /ೆಕ0ಗ ಾ
ಾಯ ವ 1 ದ 3ಾ4 5ಾನು6ೋಗರುಗ7ಗೂ ಂಚ, ಮಂಜೂ ಾ9 ೆ
ೊರ ೆ :ೕಳಬಹು"ಾದ ಅವ ಯನು' ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಾಗ+ೕಕ $ೇ%ಾ
ಯ3ಾವ7ಗಳ> 1957 ರ ಯಮ 247-ಎ ರ ಲಭABರುವ
ಅವ ಾಶಗಳನು' ಯ3ಾನು$ಾರ BಸE+ ೊಂಡು ಸ ಾ ರದ ಆ"ೇಶ ಸಂGೆA
ಆH 182 ಎಂBಎI 1977 * ಾಂಕಃ 28-11-1979 ಪ ಾರ ಂಚ,
3ಾಡತಕ0ದು" ಎಂಬ ಪದಗಳನು' $ೇ+ ಆ"ೇK "ೆ
9. The Division Bench of this court in the case of
State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Subramanya and Ors.
reported in ILR 2011 Karnataka 1891, has held thus:
"50. xxxx As set out above, Rules are applicable not
only to the permanent Government servant, they
apply equally to temporary Government servants.
whether the Government servant is permanent or
temporary, he had to satisfy the qualification
prescribed under Rule 222 to be eligible for pension.
As admittedly, these persons did not satisfy the said
requirement, Government invoked its power under
Rule 7, Rule 235 and extended the benefit of pension
to these Ex-Shanbhogues. From the aforesaid
discussion, the statutory provisions and decisions on
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8684
the point, it is clear that these Respondents Ex-
Shanbhogues are entitled for pension by virtue of the
said Government Order."
10. Rules 7 and 235 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules
are extracted for ready reference, which are as
under;
"7. Where the State Government is satisfied that the
operation of these rules causes undue hardship in
any particular case, it may, by order dispense with or
relax the requirements of that rule to such extent
and subject to such conditions as it may consider
necessary for dealing with any case in a just and
equitable manner
235. Government may by general or special order
permit service other than pensionable service, for
performing which a Government servant is paid from
the Consolidated Fund of the State or from a Local
Fund, to be treated as duty counting for pension. In
issuing such an order, Government shall specify the
method by which the amount of duty shall be
calculated and may impose any condition which it
thinks fit."
11. In the light of the said judgment read with
Government Orders as aforesaid, coupled with Rules
7 and 235 of KCS Rules, it is clear that invoking the
power und Rules 7 and 235 of KCS Rules, the benefit
of pension is required to be extended to the Ex-
Shanbhogues/deemed village Accountants.
4. This Court finds it appropriate to take judicial
notice of the circular issued by the State, referred to as
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8684
Annexure-C. In view of the said circular, coupled with the
judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
a similar case, the Court holds that the impugned
endorsement cannot stand. It is evident that the
impugned endorsement contradicts the principles laid
down by the Coordinate Bench, thereby making it legally
unsustainable.
5. The petitioner, appointed as a Shanubhoga on
01.01.1961, has rendered service as a Village
Accountant for a period totaling 9 years and 3 months.
Despite the shortfall in the qualifying service required for
the grant of pension, the circular issued by the State
through Notification dated 26.04.2013 (Annexure-C)
clearly outlines that any deficiency in service for pension
eligibility can be addressed by invoking Rule 247(A) of the
Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR).
6. Having regard to the above notification and the
fact that the identical issue has been resolved in favor of
the petitioner in the Coordinate Bench's judgment, this
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8684
Court concludes that the impugned endorsement is
erroneous and unjustified. In light of these findings, it is
deemed appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus directing
the concerned authorities to take necessary action in
compliance with the notification and judicial precedents
applicable to this case.
7. Based on the above reasoning, this Court issues
the following directives:
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned endorsement dated
15.01.2021, bearing reference No. PV13/CH-
4/2091719773/1017173194/P/18/10/206200
is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. Respondent No. 1 is directed to forward the
petitioner's service register and all relevant
documents to Respondent No. 2 within a
period of two months from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of this order.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8684
iv. Upon receipt of the service register and
supporting documents, Respondent No. 2 is
directed to process and consider the
petitioner's case for the sanction of pension
benefits. This exercise shall strictly adhere to
the State's notification dated 26.04.2013
(Annexure-C) and the principles laid down in
the judgment of the Coordinate Bench
referred to herein.
v. Respondent No. 2 shall complete the entire
exercise, including the issuance of
appropriate orders sanctioning pension
benefits, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the
proposal from Respondent No.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
