IN THE HIGH coax? 0? KRRNATAKA c:écg:§7§g$¢3*_
AT GBLBARG%
DATED THIS THE 24"i£%f o§"E2§Rfig§$;¥2Qa§7
9REs3NT_ =
THE HON'BLE Ma.J8Sf:cE V}s;
THE HGN'BLE.MR:JUST;Cfi_,fi;5.PACHHAPURE
VSAEHABIT
wA.No;29:/2oc? ré5é3
BETWEEN: _.; » ; i ;=-."*3» flf
1.
The Staté"fif Ké%&at§ké. :A§
Rep:esented<by_it$*Sed:e§@§y~II
Educa€ibn_Eepa£fimeh§"
M.S.Eui1di§g « '»[v_ .
Bangalore 550'0Q1*. %.x
The Commissioner fdf Public
Instructiens, New Public Offices
Nrugathgmga Road "
.. 8an§a1bL3'fi5O so;
. Tfie-Dirécfiofi~éf §:imary
Education, New'Pub2ic Gffices
Nrupathanga road
' 3angaEQr§ 558 O9}
. §The"fieputy Directs: cf
"_Eublic Enstructisns
=~Gu3barga District
'"»Guibarga
;« The Block Education Officer
Yadgir Taluk
Gulbarga. fippellantg
.And:
1.
"L0
Sri H Pater
Sri Hanumappa .«w-
Aged about 66 years
{Senior Citizem}
Retired Head Master'
Jeevan Vidyaiaya Lgwex
Kannada Primary Schegi
Yelleri, Yadgir "
Taluk, f~, . .u
Gulbarga DistriC:;.?[;
Residiag at V/"*.
Abbe Tumkur V
yadg;g_Tg:uk_* _V,
Gulbarga'5i5trimt}_ ,u
WEE 3é%i'sfe.::a.?:3?«..% .
Jaevan V1fiyaiaya Educati®n
Sdciéty §owe£_?ri$ary School
Yeilexir Yaégi:JTalak
g@ulbargaV§istrict
.?fi& Rccountant General
*gVig'&VE}_Karnataka
TF3rk"HQu§& Rfiad
=r@pp-g--E?sc Qffice
' Bangalore £60 881 ..
*,HKa§n
Qrder passed
Responfients
{fig 8ri.R.Padmanabha ~ Rdvscate fer C/R1;
R2 $erv&d; R3 digpansed with}
This Writ fippaai filed undai Section é of ihe
ataka High Cwurt Act praying to sat aside the
ia the Writ Patition NQ.EG399/2854
dated 1.932006.
Thia Writ fippeal Gaming on fQf'h&§fin§'%Qday,
SRBHAHIT, J delivered the fQ2lowing;fu"» . vu »
JwDGBfiEfi? ":
This agpeai is f:1ed tfir'thé ~fiés@ofiQent~State in
m
w. .NO.l$399f2004 béghg .égg:i2§§d, by 13%? oréer sjated
2.9.2895 wharein theA;gfizn§§:S€hé§% §g&g% of this Court
hag a1iQwad3"£$é .#;$§";§e££%i@fi« and diractefi ihe
respondent35#§i§fi§ w§§€f%éEi%§dh, appeliants hétfiifi, to
compute3 fiEéVfipg§;§§§§fi&__b%§§fits af regpondent No.1
herein, Et@§~vwr§§m §é€§éfibner, witfi fEf&f$fiCé to ihe
peziodygf séryzce frQ% 1.5.1995 to 3l.3.198é and to
f§:antth$ c;der,.i§ hot eariier.
V2.KRespanden: $9.: h&:ein fiieé W.?.NQ.iG399f2G§4.
yVHé w§s workimg as & teach@: in :he gixth rasgondentw
“»;fi3tiiutien from l.6.;95§. it wag a recognised
=inst:tutiQn. The appointmeni. sf the QStitiO§€£ was
M
approved from l.6.196§ by order ee:eddé8.ej§§é% ee per
Annexure~A ts the writ p§fiitiQniHeeefi§%§%éf;1 efiéle
computing the pensionary ben§fi§$}Vfifiefpefiiefitfendefied
by the writ pet:i.t.i.c3r:e3: V,é§5::;Lor ‘égg ‘i:’}’V1V:.=.= 61°?’
respondent to grant ge afié ey*erde£ dated 28.6.1984,
was not reckoned anfi”e$efigfifire?e§hé.w§it petitien was
fiied for a di:e¢fi:QfiWtfi:ifi¢:¥§é*gHe said fieriod also
for the pu;pdee:§f*§g$pgting §%e pensionary benefits
and to p$y_fh§ eQ§eegu§$tiel-§rrears thereafter. The
respondefifi-Siege fled n%fi.fiie any objection atatement
go the W:i§g@efi§fi5e.%$§@§h suffiaient opportunity was
gfiverzxfib” ena$lé«Dfifi§e:Government ta file statement. cf
%b§ect%bfi$: flja§he learned Sifigle Qudga after hearing
the”§ée:nédVQoqfiSel appearing for the writ pétiticner
Mend tfie iéaffied Qovermment Advocate agpearifig for
“”eeeeeeeeeee : te 5 held, though the eeeez admitting the
A”, 6fiVeré§pdndent. ta grant in code is dated 3i.3.l98é,
fiénefit wag given from 1.4.1984 and wherefore, directed
“athém that for the purpose cf computifig pensionary
benefitg of ihe writ patiiicner the §eriod of service
whichj was not taken into account f;%§ fi}§$:;§6§ ta
31.3.1984 wa$ alsa to be takEfi_4in:é §fi;5U$§}’a$@f the
wzit petitionar was to be p%@dfla£réa%sEQf §§fiS§Ofi on
the said Esaais and €grani§d ]j9*Qeeg$LTfiiR@m’£0 d§ the
aeafiful and accordingly, géiéwefi €fi@ §r;{ petitien by
ordex* dated l.9.2O$6{ .A That fi%éfi§ aggxieved by the
order of the 1ea:ne§rS%dgi€{J§5@§Yd§ted 1.9.2006, the
Karnataka 3:a£§«§%§ fi§§f%%r§d %hié appeal.
3. %e’fia§% 5e§r% éfi§héearned Govexnmemt Advocate
appearing f@rVth%-§p§éi:&nts.
‘_@nV?hé ré3§ondent wc.2, Education Institution in
7fi_ which resfiofifiéhfi NQ.: is emplayéé, thougfi sexv€d with
&n@t:ce has fiat chefien ta appear before this Court &md
= §@i:ééH;o respondant N$a3 was disgensed with.
5. The Zearned Gmvernment Rdvecate vehemently
« argued that the perioé sf servica xendared by the wzit
petitisnez prior to 31.3.2984, the éate on whish the
,M.5hj\
Enstitutien was admitted to grant in aid, ¢Qfild”fi€t be
taken into accaunt for cgmputingV ihelv§efisiQné§y
benefits of respondent §o.l, és7§f&ereélhy,tfiejlearnéd
Single Judge and the game ls csfifirgry ac éfile 52 fif the
Karnataka Stata Aided Sghd§E *Empléy&@$/ECentrlbutsry
Qravidfint Fund, Insuré$§@l§§fi$l§§l§§§es, 1963 which was
in existence wfiafi fifiél{%flEhm§éti£léU€f retired from
5@KViC9 9§,*é3;3;33§3fll.V3i5§§lm{he writ petitioner
zatired ggyv§t§aiQ;nQfi$§§é%énfi§ation ax: 3l.l.1§93, in
View of Rule §2lQf.fih%”apbVe referred triple banefit
Schemfi Ruieé,frafiedllhéfeinaftar referred to as the the
Rules}, hnly tfie_peri©d cf service rendered after the
I§s:ituti§m.wés recoqniged and was admitted EQ grant-
in–éod§ c§Q§d’héVtakefi inta account and wfierefoxe, the
Héfidéf §a3aéd”by the learned Single Jadge hag ta be set
lasideu,
“4. W@ have given careful consideration to the
“qabntentian and scrutinieed th& material an record.
\,.,<a_
zeependeet institution which was ' e "eieeeeeieed
r '
ineiitutien wee approved ee~-1,e,196Ef ahdf.{neVfeeid
order does not mention thee' the §e¢ied."§f "service
rendered from 1.6.1955, kthe .eete} efi "Which the
eeitidner wee apereved :0 the
eppeietment of the egit p
date of the ezder eeeed 3§§§Di§Se'eeu1d not be taken
iete account fig: fihembafifieeeeefeeeieeleting pensionery
fienefite ene fig %ect;_%hexbeee§ée of eeevice rendered
evee 3515:"#Q'§$flp§e§elef«edeieeion to the Grant» En~
Cede haeebeee eyefitee ey tee appellant in View ef the
circular ieeeed'ee$efieegeeder would clearly reveei that
ehe Geeeremeetaeill not be entitled te pay eaiery t-
'the'w:i: §et:eione§ prier to the date ef edmieeien ef
the ,eigt5J eeegendent Ieetitutien te the Gree:~Im~Aid
Cede. %" Eeweéer, for the puxpeee ef calculating the
u"%eeeienaV" beeefite, the eried ef service rendered
._e H _
'tf§eme lC6.l965 to 31.3.1984 eeeld net have been
:1. '\~~3r\ 3\€»c\ 'pr
ieefiixhae. Rule 52 ef' the Rules relied epem by "the
e,1ee:nee Geverement Advocate eagle not be heieful :0 him
ie the preeent appeal as the said Rule efiiy envisages
\J»J3
tfmé service rendered kg! the .ret:red»}emeie%ee eim mere
than one aided institutien,wte& pg" e§g§£ée,'fé£; tbe
purpose of payment of peesieearf'eeeefieeeeeéfléfie eeed
Rule does met prohibit gee §he"eeme ;5Kh¢t eppiieabie
to the facts ef the eeee._W"
6. ?he Appel;ant4See§e”fifieegereee given sufficient
Ofipertunity §&!f%i§’$§3g%§i§§e ie eke writ petition did
not cheese fioee;;¢::§§;§b§g§:§ons to the writ petition
and the ereef §aeeafi%§y.tfie appeilant itself produced
at Annexeeeea is {fie efifi petition referred to above
defied 2;;6,l984.fibfi1d alee shew that the eppeintment ef
‘2
“fihe”.wf§t°fpet;tioner was approved en ;.6.l965 and
where£ere;7:heeZeazeeé Single Judge was justified in
‘”me1ding_thei.ihe period of service reedereé by the wrii
~fF%$i§ienez free 2.6.1965 to 3§.3;l98é eheil be taken
ea£fiie_eeeeuet fer computing the peneieeary benefits and
‘ the eaid erder does not euffer frem enye errez or
‘_ei;iegelity end we do not find any reeeee to fiiffer wit
‘the View taken by the Eeareed Single Judge.
V) e
I3
7. Accerdingiy, we pass the fol
lowing”©fdéE::+
The writ Appeal is reje¢€é§; §he¢afi§e;l§fi§§ hepéin
are granted 12 weeka time frofi_fioday ta Comply Qiih the
order passed by the learnefi fiingié fiuflgé having regard
to the gecuiiar facta of the éaéé,
Sd/-
JUDGE
sd/—
JUDGE