High Court Karnataka High Court

B K Chandrashekar Sagar vs Kidwai Memorial Institute Of … on 25 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
B K Chandrashekar Sagar vs Kidwai Memorial Institute Of … on 25 January, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY,"

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE   " " V

WRIT PETITION N0. 8167 OEEOO7  

BETWEEN:

B.K.CHANDRASHEKAR sAOAR____'-.__ --

AGED ABOUT 49  . " *

S/O LATE K.R.KENcmxP.PA   1  
WORKING As ASSISTANT I<'RO'F'ESSQ.R'--  
DEPARTMENT OF NEURO.pAT'H.OEOO"{  
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF Mf¢;:NTAL"_j».. A '
Hl33AL'}§'I-I ANDNEBRO .S'C1ENcEs V ' 
BANGALORE' »--i'_56'e-61,29.'-..,;«--._"~~. "  '  PETITIONER

[BY SRT.  A1")'\./_H.T)W
AND: V I T T
1. KIDWAI MEMOR,1Ai;_1N'sT1TUTE OF ONCOLOGY

HQSUR ROAD, 'EANOALORE 550 029
REPROEEENTEE'  ITS DIRECTOR

 ':2.{' STA'1'.EA'OvP'v fQA.RNATAr<A

. BY 1"i-'vS"~SECTRIEiTARY To GOVERNMENT
U1NTTHE'DE1FTARTMENT OF' HEALTH AND

E.AM1_EY -WELFARE. VIDHANA SOUDHA

BANGALORE A 550 001.  RESPONDENTS

JBYOERI. “M.v.sEsHAcHALA. ADV. FOR R1:
_ ‘ * –..sA/IT. M.C.NAGASHREE, OA FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILEII) UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

“CONSTITUTION OF’ INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

_g_

ORDERS DT.21.06.2002 VIDIE A.NE\lEX–K. AND DATED
20.9.2006 VIDE ANNEXQ. BOTII ISSUED BY RI”-AND
DIRECT THE RI TO MAKE OVER ITS LIABILITY”»._F’QR

PRO~RATA PENSION AND GRATUITY FOR Tim11:;_4s:sRiv–1_e.EsV.

RENDERED BY THE PIEZTITIONER AND E3’I’C.

THIS PE’I’I’I’iON COEVIING ON FOR~~~§?«F§:E.IiIl’¥l:Il’JA1?§(l »
rfiyeuwcIN*3’GROUP.THE;nAYeeH;couRTNugn9rHe,

FOLLOWING I A’ p
ORDERCT

According to the I the
respondent, the petitioner as Assistant
Research Scientist W Kidwai
Memorial “inst.itute”.

applied tor employment in
Natlorial Health and Neuro Sciences

[‘NIMHAi\ISi_’.fo1f when selected. submitted his

resvigfaaavtieti \NhlC’I’h_._Vif’&S accepted and on being relieved

the services of NIMHANS. The

rejection .’the petitioners representation to the

s_pInstitute}_to discharge its liability for pr0–rata pension

A V~lIf’and”g.rat11ity by paying onetime payment to NIMHANS

I and count the services rendered by the petitioner in the

I/”K

inst.itui:e for pensionary benefits. has resulted. in this

petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondezjit.vsubrnitsi V’

that the transfer of personnel;iiibetweeeii .;t,he«._Ceirtra1′.

Government / Autonomous ‘V__b’oc_iies ” b3tateV*..

Government. / Aut’.o1’1omous”b’o:t;iies and_V_V’ie.Ve= does
not apply to the petitioner
was selected in a The
recruitment “‘t’r:a’risfe.rV}iabsorption, the

rejection ofthe_.peti’ti~one’r7s; ‘cram to count his services

rendered 2111 for pensionary benefits by
paying eertain_rnVonies”‘to_”t.NIi\/IHANS. is just, and proper.

‘[1′:¥.3,_._sMereiy Vfoeetauvse the petitioner’s application for

NIMHANS in response to the notification

for __ree1″tgit.rrient.. was forwarded through the institute,

Hthe proper channel for empioyed personnel, does not

Jriszesi: in the petitiorier a right to claim benefits on

VA V’ trémsfer to other Bodies. The submission of the learned

M

“[3,-

counsel deserves £1(‘.C.€p'{,E1l’1(f(3 in the Eight of Sect.ion–VH

of the ‘E’ransfe1’ of Persormel between Cemral

Government / Auton()n101.1s bodies V.

Government / Autonomous bodies e1n.d_A”»:icé.A_ ‘~vje3r€§a-«

KS