Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Smt Sathya Prema Kumari vs State Of Karnataka Dept Of … on 1 July, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN '§'§~IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, A'  _

OATEO THIS THE 1%'? DAY OF JU¥,.;Y._;'2fQO:£A§:::  T4 %% "  J 

BEF'ORE'_

THE HONBLE MR. JI rsf1f1OE  ' AJIT J OLr11$:;§Jg§L  %

WRYFPETYPION NO OF L2(mf6 (S) 
BETWEEN:  : %% F

1 SM'? SATHYA PREMA KUMARI'  '  O
W/O K A JAYARAM, AGED' '53j«-YEARS
Occ; RE'§§1Rg«3DO.ASé31a3'rANT jMIS'I'RESS
R/O NfJ.8g"2,""C}>iOR§§,3MAEN 'R,OA1:)
DEEPANJA"I.I;NAGARV,'"BIIYSORE ROAD

BAI€'C¥AL{}RE-'Z6 =

 PETFFIONER.

(By s:i_}f«: TH:1:e'1_fH;APPA,._ )

 'V  5.".    x  ,  ..... .. "

   «f.s'1.'A=:O$ VKLARNATAKA DEPT OF EDUCATION

.  (.f_'R3Ii\o'§FxRY,.8i SECONDARY) M.S.BUILDING
O .}l1DHmg'xVEEDI, BANGALORE-- 1

  V2 COMMISSIONER QF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

V, " *  PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING
* .,N RUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANC:ALORE~ 1

' O' ;%3%  DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT
KALASIPALYA, BANGALORE}?



__VD.D.R,.€;}, €3OMMUIw«ATIQN VALUE OF PENSION AND HER
 MONTHLYFPENSION BASED ON THE TOTAL PENSEONABLE
"SERVICE, 'QFV 9.1.6 YEARS 2 MGNTHS 20 DAYS BY

 PE'1'I'I"I.{_)NER INACCCRDANCE WITH RULE 6 AND 18 OF
 '§',B.S. RULES' READ WITH RULE 247 A OF K.C.S.R.

   IN 'B' GROUP T2113 DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
-  _ 'FOLLOWING:

4 ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAI{A_{A'8aE-3..   
RESIDENCY PARK ROAD, P B NO.529/5369.   "
BANGALORE   %

560 001  . 

5 SR1 SHARADA VIDYA PEETHA"{_R)g
BYATARAYANAPURA    '
MYSORE Rom  
BANGALORE560 O26
BY ITS SECRE'I'AFZ¥..V_    

    RESPONDENTS.

(By Sri S.Z.A. KHLTRESH-E;"ArG.A--..é}?Q}§R.i:TO R4,
SR1 D LEELA1§1=<:§:amA15I, A:r;v.C«.FOR-- .R§.j' )

THIS WP }3,'ILED=-.UN£).ER~..AR'I';§Ci,.ES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONS"§§TiJTiO«N_, VFRAY1N(}._'I_fOV.Q{3ASH THE IMPUGNED
LETTER  D'1'.«18.10;'€2;005»._" ISSUED BY THE R5 --»
ACCoUN:'AN*I' GI3N'ER}iL"~X{1'DE ANN-»D.

D1REcir  ~ THE AV.I?i§)fS?E5(fiNDEN1'S TO DEYFERMINE
PENSIQNARY ;8r3,NE1»*m3 OF THE PETITIONER INCLUDING

E;~:fra;NDI1§CjrH9:%CC;3ENEF1Ts OF 5 YEARS OF SERVICE TO
THE "--.QUALiFY'§NG SERVICE RENDEREC BY THE

' mxs PE'I'ITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

O R D E R

The petitioner retired from service on 1.3.2005 on

attaining the age of superarmuation. The petitioner was

/’

/./7

intirnated by respondent-4 regarding

benefits. The Block Selection Authority

written a letter to respondent~5 consider ih(§’.,._

petitioner for payment of penssioa11ijk– iienefits.
5 has issued the impugned of the
petitioner for gant tienefits on the
gound that the date of to 2.8.1984 was
not covered ¥oy_’ Government. But
the service from 9.2.1994 to
” Gmnt-in-Aid. has been

considexed .fort%t11e..1}en;sio11.»L””

.’id.ef§ti<:2f§i.subjeot'ifeB for consideration before this court

disposed of on 30.6.2008, wherein

' this e'e1::rt__'set aside the impugned endorsement. It is to

d " 'T noticetithat Ruie 18 R/W rule 52 of Tripie Benefit Scheme

considered. I am of the View that this order also is

it ':'_4';{'eq:.iired to be set aside.

5. Consequently, the following order is passed: fl

/
X

The impugmd eI1d0rsement;A>V at
quashed. The matter stands 4.:
reconsider the case of thsr ix}
observations made WP. of on
30112003. Wu A H n

Rule is issgiegl ”

date of receipt of
the 00133.85 ” V’ V V

A.’C}.A. is permitted to file memo

of appcaraizge wit1:xj1i*.fo11f_.’weeks.

Sd/~
3udg5

age’


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.416 seconds.