Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25840 OF 2014 (S-R) BETWEEN: SRI. H. EKANTAPPA AGED 66 YEARS RETIRED FIRST GRADE REVENUE INSPECTOR, R/O. DOOR NO.44, I MAIN 6TH CROSS, JAIMARUTHINAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560096 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION IN KARNATAKA VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI 2. THE COMMISSIONER RAMU PRIYA MAHANAGARA PALIKE, Location: HIGH COURT OF DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA DIST: DAVANAGERE-577002
3. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HARIHARA-577601 DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HARAPANAHALLI-583131 DAVANGERE DISTRICT. -2-
5. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LOCAL AUDIT CIRCLE DAVANGERE-577006 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 5 SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI. M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.SthaLeDa:Pim:PPO No.452/Parishkrutha/2012-13/276
DATED 08/13.08.2012, PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-P, PERUSE AND QUASH THE FIXATION OF LAST PAY DRAWN AND THE PENSION AS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2009 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 1`6(1) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to forthwith fix the pay as -3- revised from time to time and other benefits in terms of Annexure-D.
2. The petitioner was a Revenue Inspector 1st Grade
who worked in various Municipal Councils, Municipalities and retired in the year 2004. The petitioner claims that due to non- maintenance of proper service records, his pay, time bound promotions, retrospective claim for promotions were not considered. The petitioner therefore, filed W.P.No.12452/2005 which was allowed in terms of the order dated 22.03.2007 and the respondents were directed to fix the pay after taking into consideration the earlier directions issued by this Court in
W.P.No.26442/2004. The respondent No.1 following the order
passed by this Court in writ petitions referred above, passed an
order dated 15.10.2009 and determined the pay payable to the
petitioner.
3. The petitioner contends that instead of fixing the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 15.10.2009 and the letter of the respondent No.4 dated 12.11.2009, the respondent No.5 issued a notice dated 02.01.2012 seeking to fix the pension on the basis of the last -4-
paid salary of Rs.5,450/- instead of Rs.7,200/-. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondent No.5 contending that pension had to be fixed by considering the last drawn salary of Rs.7,200/- and not Rs.5,450/-. Since the pension was not fixed even thereafter and as the respondents were pressurising for recovery, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.23804/2012 which was allowed by this Court vide order
dated 25.07.2012 and the order of recovery of the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner was set aside and the respondents were directed to fix the pay of the petitioner as mentioned in the said order. The petitioner hence, filed a representation on 01.08.2012 requesting the respondent No.1
to re-fix his salary as per the orders passed in W.P.Nos.12452/2005 and W.P.No.23804/2012 and determine the pension payable to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the said representation is not considered till date and that there is an error in fixation of pay and salary of the petitioner at Rs.5,420/- instead of Rs.7,200/-. The petitioner is therefore
before this Court challenging the correctness of the order
passed by the respondent No.1 on 13.08.2012. He also sought -5- for a direction to consider the representations filed in the light of the orders passed by this Court mentioned above.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent No.1 submitted that in the light of
order passed by this Court in the writ petitions referred above,
if the petitioner is entitled to re-fixation of his salary taking into account the time bound, promotions and increments to be granted to the petitioner, it would be considered. He also submits that after such determination, the pension of the petitioner shall also be re-fixed in accordance with law.
5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms:
(i) The respondent No.1 is directed to revisit his
order dated 13.08.2012 in the light of the orders
passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.12452/2005 and W.P.No.23804/2012 and fix the salary of the petitioner by giving effect to promotions and increments to which the petitioner is entitled to as per law. -6-
(ii) Consequently, to consider the representations of the petitioner for re-fixation of the pension after re-determining the pay payable to the petitioner.
(iii) This shall be complied by the respondent No.1
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions are left open. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51