IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL0REfTT%.jA'
DATEI3 THIS THE 23th DAY OF JUNE 2003? AT' " _
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJET X
WRIT PETITION No.265i35_/2oo2%(€gR)
BETWEEN :
Sri.S.P.I)haranendra_n, '
S/o.Sri.S.N.Parthy,.éA '
Major, E::__- 'V 'V .
R/o.Sughanda::' Nflgayég » _
No.2A, Opp: PHC 'QL:aI'te1*s,. I
Konanalmzité; - _
BangaloI'e',---- 550 o6;>,T, T _ .
By Power of Aitoia'3ey«PIoIti¢1*;.
Mr.P.Surendr~a_. ~ *
. . PETITIONER
(fijejlfiiss. Réngaxzath, Adv. for
- S1':.Pra1nod' wifiathavl 83
V. _' $fl,B4.Pramod, Advs.)
}
V 1-.' ?T)Wer
V-.Trans:{:1ission Corporation
. ' " LA:~_t.=1::.;te<1i,"' Cauvery Bhavan,
Bangalore -- 560 009,
" Représcntcd by its
The Chief Engineer --
Elecl (General),
Karnataka Power Corporation
Transmission Corporation
Limited, Cauvery Bhavan,
Bangalore ---- 560 009. ...RESPONDEN'If$
(By Sri.B.S.Kan1ate, Adv. &
Sri.I~Iarikrishna S.Ho11a, Adv. for R1)
This writ petition is filed u.nder'-.Art_'ieIe' 226 of' the---__ if
Constitution of india with a Tpraye1"=._ to quash' the
impugned endorsement/ order dated. 27.0.1200 I issueé
by the respondent wide Annexure "EH1-y holding thatfilitle
same is illegal, arbitrary, eapricio11s’~v_ie1;ative “of V_ArfcIe
14 and 16 of the Oonstitutionof I11d_ia;- _ ‘A ‘A
This writ petition eonfing’ day,
the Court made the §_’o1loWin’ : ” ‘ ». i
The tlze services of the
respondent –‘ Assismnt Engneer with
effect tree 02.01. with efi’ect from 01.07.1986 to
extra-ordina1’y leave to pursue his
higher It is not in dispute that he went
VV’v”fs1)road necessary permission. He sought for
4:’ veegtension of the said leave, which was refused.
re-joined the duty on 23.11.1992. The
‘ introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme
their Corporation on 31.08.1990. The petitioner Q)
X
-3-
applied for volmitary retirement on 30.11.1992.
same was approved by the Board and he was A
to retire from 01.06.1993. The petitioner’
is exititied for pension inasmuch as
years of qualifying service as the
taken for a period of five is te ‘added: to
his qualifying service.
2. The Court in
W.P.No.308_3.1./ the matter
for fresh flatter was remanded,
things did net’ endorsement was
iseiied .:2001 declining te gent the
Indeed the endorsement would
diselosei . “he is entitled for gatuity for the
_ rendered but however, the pensionary benefits
since he had not put in 15 years of qualify’ ing
. The impuyied endorsement is at Annexure ‘E’.
3. Miss. Kusum Raziganath, learned counsel
appearing for Mr.LPramod N. Kathavi, for the petitioner fl
I’
X
.. 5 ..
It is also not in dispute that the said weightage given
under the scheme is only for the purpose of pension
gratuity and certainly not for notional fixation of P*’§i5″‘fO?.–.i..j: it
the purpose of gratuity.
6. Indeed the moot question is A
is required to be added to deterniiiiei .
service. The qualifying serifice is
to be noticed that the the services
on 02.01.1975 and4_:contiI.i1’e<i–'tl1em tin
0 1.07. 1986:vi;'e1,' But however,
from o1.o7.q19s6 qee.ee.i991 he had taken
extraordinary ieiairetfoiif 'foi*t*:igi"iiVstudies. I am of the View
that _ of Viiiexfraordinaiy leave, which was
is also required to be added
the itfiiildetermining the qualifying service of
" '-petifiofisf; if not due weightage of five years is
V be given for the purpose of determining the
service of 15 years as per Regulation
i..,i/.iV2'1?1§(A)(iv) of the Regulations. _,Q
7. Indeed the endorsement impugned does not
deal with this aspect of the matter except
the ;)et..itioner does not have the requisite
service for getting pension. 1?
View that the matter requiI*es_:re»cor1sid’eration–t. the:
hands of the respondents once age _
8. Consequently,
(a) Petition
(b) The dd Armexure ‘E’
__ – ‘
(C) The restpondentzzfi the case 01’
_ the ._%§)etitioner ofiter limit of three
date of receipt of this order.
Sdf
Endigge
es