IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY 01? AUGUST, 20
PRESENT
THE HQNBLE MR. J. s. _
AND
THE I~ION'BLE MRS. JUSTIVCE_.§&4A§§}'J_UL:A (3.'rv:i*'v;€jiV.~i.i\; %
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3 :77_2<3Qs
BETWEEN " é %
1. State of Kaxnatflka V
Representeé§~bj;<"3r3.tiior1,¥3$§5art1118iit ' V
M. S. Building 5:,__ _ "
BaIzg;g1lore--r1 _ '
2. The Director 0'f._ '
C:o--operative Auciiii "
N0._13'--v, Lilaya Nivas', '
._ Ba"savéi1'1agi~.1éi
A Banga1¢"*'?*4""'
3. 'i'hé;VDep1:€i}% Director of
_ CO'«op¢_i'ativc Audit
'I'umku1é_Dist:rict
'I'11'r;1ku:'-572 101
V' ;f'he Assistani: Director of
V" '{30--operat:ive Audit
S. S. Par.-am
TL11:I1k{1r~572 102 APPELLANTS
/ (By Sri. B. Vtasrappa A.G.A.)
AND
Siddaganga Urban
Co--operative Bank (Ltd)
8. H. Road
'}'umkur--'572 101
Represented by
Sri. H. K. Shiva Prakash
Manager . _
(By Sri. S. v. Narasimmn, AdVO_(_:ate) * _ V
This Writ Appeal is flied 5} of"i;h:¢: E{a1;f3§ataka
High Court Act praying to set fr:tsir3;*c:--.th¢ ordervvpasseci in
the WP. N0.850/2005 {$52123}dg:_t¢d.__;22%;--o%2.2005.
This Appea1_ CGI¥13'.I1g 0VI1.' __Vf<,:3r this day,
Manjuia Chelim' git, vd§sfir:;g;'
Thf: A' appeal chalienging
the ardeiis 55. the Judge in Writ Petition
N"o.86() pf 2'(xfi>O5.V_" A J
v9.1..,.I.€zitor of C0«ope:I'aI:ive societies by
'V was disputed to respondent, bank
13.11c.1<=;7 t:;E"ze_é.§;f{;¥fisions of Rule 441 of Iialnataka Civil
Sfimice Rviiieé, 1998 (for short 'the Ruies'). Ha was in
t§':i_c:.V§a"§i;<i estabiishmem from 25.2.2001 to 23.2.2002.
%* %%MV'::)u:{ mg the said period, the said senior auditor had
}::ar<:iiac problem} and he took traatment and he was
given medical reimbursement of Rs.95,621/~ by the
State Government. Ultimately he expired due to
attack. Later his Wife submitted an _
the prescribed Rules seeking hreftrmd "til" —- '4
expenditure amountirig to Rs), ,6§3;'}..,t'~ 11;:
necessary certificates.
3. Subseqtzentiy, the the
provisions of Ruie 441 (Sf reecavery ef
reimbursement__ from the
respondent 5:» ~ t
4. Argssgstea the said claim.
Aeeerciineteé’ the “before the learned single
Judgefl being the costs incurred
tee-terds treatment of Mr. LN’. Mesta,
rierem was liable to pay the medical
‘ _rei1111§a.1rsemerit as per the above said Rules. Provisions
W H ” R1,1i_.e of the Ruies read as under:
“44 1. When an aéditien is made to
a regular establishment on the condition
that its (3931:, er a definite portion if its
east, shall be recovered from the persons
for whose benefit the additienal
establishment is created, recoveries
i shall be made under the foilowing rules:
(a) The amomat to be recovered
shail be the goes sanctiened cost of the
service, or of the portien of the service,
as the case may be, and shall not vary
with the aema} expenditure on any
month.
(b) The cost ef the service, $123114′
include COI}€1’ib’L1ti{}}f1S at the _ra§t:{:e
prescribed at the rates» *prescIibed
Rule 427 and the c:eI1tI’ili..{z1″£ie;)I1Sj;.si1a’]lA’¥3e”–..vL V’V
ealcuiated ‘(en the groes s:mc*tié)ne(i’–<;t:-::sf£V _ "
of the service, in re$pect"f”‘the my
salary portion 01′ the C§)i1§fibui1€)__I}’ C>*:1″”
the average cost of the v.estab1isf:2f:;e11t in:
respect ef the pens;i=enA ” poi>1;ioI1 0f…3;he’
c:0ntril:m.tion.)’ .__ .,
((M9) The cost, cf the ;se1’v.iceT._’S1’i’al1 be
paid i’1f’fLeei1′<L2~;_3,fS*s«.IfcQ:1z'~t}:1e' date of
raising t1j.e'rec0ver§' m"1d_er"th_is- Ruie, on
fa:i1__1}'3'f: .;}f~.3zsrb.i{:11: ax}-..ir1t=e1'est at the rate of
tW(}_p8g_iSg$ per _<§'::?£.3-* 'per I{s§'10O shall be
ve.leVieCi«e_0n"'T§n€ é:1,I:1:ouf1t~—d.L1e from the date
of"ex1:ti:"_§%" ofA%}1e:"'pfesC1ibed period of 15
_ . ., daye L1ptef:he'.d8;te on which the axnount
V ire.
Govermtnem; may reduce the
‘ of recoveries or may entirely
fete-g{§:= them.
.. (Nete 1: The term ‘@053 sanctioned
-.a.::i:)st of the service used in this Rule
means the average cost of the
estaioiishmem; + Deafness aflmvance
(and dea1*:1ess~eum~Comper1sato1’y»c1J,t:{1~
House Rent Allowance apprepriate to the
average cost in the abssefice of specific
0§’€Z1€3Z”S to the eon’tI’aI’y.)
~{:\’fi
__sa§(
whatsoever is brought before the Court indicating under
what head or clause medicai rei1’nburse1’nent alnoqnt
3350 Gerald be termed as ‘grcssas sanctioned costs c;~_’f’
service’. Therefore, we are of the opinion, Eh? :—-}eaf:1éd A *
single Judge was justified in sa}Ij:1g»tif;e
appeilamts from the respimdent in dr’d§§’1<. 711
22.4.2003 was erroneous anti
Accordingly, the appe;–a1i–s a:sm:s;s.e;14M