High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K V Raghunathan vs Kuvempu University on 3 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri K V Raghunathan vs Kuvempu University on 3 April, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
W33

-.1-

IN THE HIGH CUUHT DE KARNfiThRH RT BENGfiLORE

mmn nus THE 03*" pm: my APRIL, 2003

B E F D R E

THE HON'BLE MR.JU3TICE SUBHHSH B ADI

W.P. "Q. 1391 GE 2993 £5-E!
EETfiEEN :
Sui. E.V. Raghunathan,
Vngad about 67 years;
Efa V. Lakahmipathi,
?:incipal iRfitd.3; .
'Sraerang&', 5"'Croas.
Seshadripurum,
Shimoga. ...PETITIUER
  I  11:'; .511. uunislyafisnuif asaul 
EH' :
1. Kmuamgu University,
Janna Sahyadri,
Ehankaraghatta * 5?? 451,
Shimaga District,
Rapraaantad by its
Registrar.
2. State mi Karnataka,
Rspreaented by ita
Principal Secretary,
Eduaation Departmant,
[Higher Educatianh,
M.5. Building;
Bangalore ~ 560 001. ...RE5PONDENTS

[HY SKI. RAJENDEA KUHER SUNGA?, ADV. FOR R-1,

5RIv BHERHA GGWDA B. GOUHRR,

HEGP FOR R*2)



Thia Writ Patition is filad under:
fizticlea 226 ii 23? at the G,ngtitution 9:
India, praying ta call for the records
péftaiming ta efidarsamaht Ha. Ku¥a.HasaEa. 3.
2007-U8:l303 dated fi.6.2007 -- Annexuze 'S' of
the 1" respondent. peruse the aame and

declare it as improper and illegal; quash the
enriicmsemant No. KING .MaSaNe . 3 . 200′?-08 31303
dated fi.5 7″”? – Ennexure ‘5’ of the 1″

raapondent; and direct the reapondanta ta pay
intareat at 12% on the dalayad payment of
penainnary benefits of Rs.2,69,25?!- in terms
of thm G.fl. dated l3.9.199¢.

This Writ Petition ¢aming an for

-u-«.,,,_,,’1,!_.._-,,L_.MA 1:1-.______-.._.._ ,LL..’._ ..’l___.. .:,’L_ .0-I__.-…..,.;… ……_J….
.E:”IS’3.LJ.I.’IIl.LE.I’.l-E’LI.”‘_'{ J.”1Bfl]2.].I1g :;11J.Es u 34’, um wou.L1. tun:
tha follwwin :*

C] P. D E F.

The patitianer has sought far quaauing of

Annexure ‘S’ w an enflorsement fiated 6.6.200!

iaauad by the raspondent — Univarsity, inter-
alia declining to pay intaxest on the delayed
payment of panaianary hanefiits on the ground

thmig thage ‘waa nn delay in diaburaing the

paflsianary hfinfifita.

2. Ttw petitinner retired. fram aervice on
3D”‘Anguat 2000 and his pensimn was fiinaiisad

onu 2?.13.2UflU. Hawevar, nne T.$. Ifioovaiah

»%¢’>

V/v

Gawda filed a writ petition No.¢l29B!’l999

against the State, University and the

patit:i.<:«ner herein. The said writ petition was

diapsczse»-.31 -of by this Court D11 16" January

….'I-3

er–~ai 'W t''''%

a diraatiu ..

cmsnsiszier the representation of aaid Hoovaiah
Emma and dispasa it expeditiously by passing
app:-mp-riate order tharman, preferably within

three months fircsm the data of cararclmunication cf

the raid order. Thereafter, tha Govarmnent
ta;.’r-r-‘k. naarl,-‘ “acre than .5 years ta diapaae. cf
the representation of Hochvaiah Gcawda and
ultimataly can 02.05.2006 the Government

rvaject-eel the representation of I-Iomraiah Gowda

when had claimed the: seniarity over the
gatitianers

3. Dn 02.08 .2006 petitioner made at

rayraaantatian tn the University for settling

,1… ¢ . _ — …….i –….;.-3 a. nu
iirits j.?’.’3IJ.Wi”«.«’I’£.l. nuu the aumfi ‘iffifi fi%t”;$l%5» an

222 .0’-a.2G£I:6. Petitioner claims that, there is

a delay of more than 31:-c years in payment: of

pazlsiunaxy benefits and he is entitled for the

intaxast thereof.

4-. Learned Counsal for the respondent -~

University submit that, the University

ginaliaed. ‘aha pension as long back as on

27.12.2090. Eiorwzever, on a<::count: of pendency

(.1
£1:

:1′
:3′
its

filed. v em=’1’…h Ge.-“,s.._..-:!;., the-
ammtnt was not raleas-ed in favour of thfi
patitimner and iIru:rua«::iia.t:a.ly aftaar disposal of
the Jrapresentatinon raf I-Izz:-orvaiah Gowda on

fl2.0.’5..2EI”ClE.. the TJniverait:y has disbursed the

mm-unt on 22.08.2006.

5. Leatnad Govazznmant Pleader submita that,
can euzrezount of the pendency of the proceedings

the a.~.:«.’;em?: was rt.-;st v”e=.1e .i5fit.’l

tzuaatgsrfi. -ELEE delay in Tfi

6. It is not in dispute that, the» petitioner

.._. .’…….,.:u ,….. -:2-1511 …….. =’:n-‘wan ‘
J.ut4..z..rr.xI..L ‘1. :44. Fsu.-gufit ::.uI..-W. It 15 filfifi 1103

in dispute that, the petitiener is antitied

for 3;;-mxsia-nary benefits and acccrdingly, the

(MAL
$5’/u–

LTn1w.=:mity dewicivad to the wane by ordar dated

E’?.12.EDI:11:-. H-aw:-aver, it is not in dispute

that. till 22.03.2006 the amid amuunt waa not
g_*:;’:.ic_1; can gag-:::.c;:u,,’l; age: the yen-ziarmcy or the
rapreemritatirfi” fisf “””‘vaiah Gwvrda. The said
rep]:-aaentation has been rejected by ‘aha

Gm:’e.:1umer1t on 02.05.2006. From these facts, it

ia r::.3.2§«a1: that, the petitioner: become entitled

fur gansi-in in the year 2031:! itself. The said
Nzanefit is pairi eat.-ear air»: yaegxa L- ugh
cxircumtan-ma, I <3' '::1:u;-"a "pi::'1i"1 that, the

patiitjnsrier baing a 1;:-eneionez and on account of

the l,it:iga.ti::an and the delay can the part cafi

the ffrcvermnent in not disposing of the
xwepramantati-an as directed by this Ca-urt, and
}:.%-:1:-ing the mavtez far ..v:,~m than 5» years
pandirw, «fieapit-at 0:? the time fitififllfiffid by

this ffourt, and for the lapse can the part of
the; ES~-:n.reJ:'nIr:ant tha petitioner is denied of the

pensicun from 2000 to 2006. Hence, he has t-:3

kw: +:<:=m1_:_3 enaateci.

?. Eng Univaxsity is dizagted to pay the

ifiterttt at tn rate ef 9% p.n. G1 the said
amount from the data an which petitioner
bficama antitla and the University is entitled

ta racmter the said amount tram the

C§|.’2|”l.f’E;1Z’I’JIlTi§i!I1’C ..

8. Acmordingly, the writ petiticn in
alluwad. The endorsement dated fi.6.2D0?
Efinnexure ‘S’1 is hereby quashed. The
Unitarait” ia directed ta gay the intexeet ta
the petitionax as cbaervefl above, and the
Univarsity ia at liberty ta recover tap same

’33’;

from tha Gavernment.

Sd/-‘I
.tt:.r.’1’I.?.r –