ORDER
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.
1. Though this petition is posted for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.
2. A few facts which are not in dispute and which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as hereunder:
The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in National College of Education, Shimoga, which was being managed by the 4th respondent-Society, on 5th August, 1968. The Additional Director, Department of State Education, Research and Training, by means of his order dated 11th October, 1968, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to the petition, has approved the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the National College of Education, Shimoga,' with effect from 5th August, 1.968. When the petitioner was serving at the National College of Education, Shimoga, he was sent on deputation to Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, on 14th August, 1974, initially for a period of two years and thereafter his deputation was continued till 30th November, 1979. Subsequently, he was permanently absorbed in the services of the Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, with effect from 17th April, 1980. He retired from the services of the Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere on 31st July, 1997. While considering the retirement benefits of the petitioner, the respondents refused to take into account the services rendered by him during the period from 14th August, 1974 to 30th November, 1979 during which period he served as a Lecturer at Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, on the ground that during that period, the said College was not admitted for grant by the State Government. The respondents had taken into account the services rendered by the petitioner only for the periods from 5th August, 1968 to 14th August, 1974 and 1st December, 1979 to 31st July, 1997. The claim made by the petitioner to take into account the services rendered by him for the period from 14th August, 1974 to 30th November, 1979 came to be rejected by the 1st respondent, by means of its order dated 12th April, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-J to this petition. The correctness of the order Annexure-J is called in question in this petition by the petitioner.
3. Sri B. Rudragowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the correctness of the impugned order Annexure-J, has submitted that since the services of the petitioner was lent on deputation basis to Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, with the approval of the 2nd respondent, it is not permissible for respondents 1 to 3 to exclude the period of service rendered by him from 14th August, 1974 to 30th November, 1979 at the said College only on the ground that the said College was not admitted for grant during the said period. Elaborating his submission, he pointed out that since the lien of the petitioner was retained at the National College of Education, Shimoga, for the purposes of grant of retirement benefits, the services rendered by him on the basis of deputation from 14th August, 1974 to 30th November, 1979 should have been considered as if he continued to be in the services of National College of Education, Shimoga, which was admittedly admitted for grant. He further pointed out that when the 2nd respondent has approved the deputation of the petitioner to the Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, in the year 1980 and the said educational institution was also admitted for grant in the year 1979, the petitioner cannot be denied retirement benefits for the period during which he has worked in Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere.
4. However, Sri V.K. Narayana Swamy, learned Government Pleadertried to support the impugned order. He submitted that under Rule 18 ofthe Grant-in-Aid Rules, the services rendered by a Lecturer in an educational institution which is admitted for grant only would be taken intoconsideration. He further submits that since Vivekananda College ofEducation, Arasikere was not admitted for grant during the relevantperiod, the services rendered by the petitioner during the said periodcannot be taken into account for the purposes of calculating his retirement benefits.
5. In the light of the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the only question that would arise for my consideration is as to whether the services rendered by the petitioner from 14th August, 1974 to 30th November, 1979 at Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, should be taken into account?
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was sent on deputation to Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere with the approval of the 2nd respondent. The memo dated 10th November, 1976, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B to the petition, shows that the deputation of the petitioner from National College of Education, Shimoga to Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, for a period of four years with effect from 14th August, 1974, was approved. The memo dated 4th June, 1979, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-C to the petition, also shows that the deputation of the petitioner to Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, from National College of Education, Shimoga, was extended by one more year with effect from 14th August, 1979. It is also not the case of the respondents that the deputation of the petitioner to Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere was not approved by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was sent on deputation from National College of Education, Shimoga, to Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, with the approval of the 2nd respondent. It is also not in dispute that when the petitioner was sent on deputation to Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, during the relevant, period, he had retained his Hen at National College of Education, Shimoga. However, it is the stand of the State that retention of lien in the National College of Education, Shimoga, is only for the purposes of his continuance of repatriation but cannot be for computation of retirement benefits. This is clear from the statement made in paragraph 5 of the statement of objections. Therefore, the undisputed facts set out above indicate that during the period from 14th August, 1974 to 30th November, 1979, the petitioner was working at Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, on deputation, with the approval of the 2nd respondent while retaining his lien at National College of Education, Shimoga. Therefore, in my view, it is not permissible for respondents 1 to 4 to exclude the period from 14th August, 1974 to 30th November, 1979 during which period the petitioner had worked as Lecturer/Principal at Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, only on the short ground that the said College was not admitted for grant. The petitioner, was permanently absorbed in the Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, only with effect from 17th April, 1980. Therefore, it is only when the petitioner came to be permanently absorbed at Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, with effect from 17th April, 1980, the lien retained by the petitioner at National College of Education, Shimoga, came to be revoked. Till that date, for all purposes, the petitioner continued to be an employee of the National College of Education, Shimoga. It is also not in dispute that during the relevant period, necessary contribution towards retirement benefits was being collected from the petitioner. This is clear from Annexures-H.1, H.2 and H.3 produced by the petitioner and also the observation made in the impugned order Annexure-J, dated 12-4-2000 wherein a direction was given to refund the contribution collected from the petitioner. The view I have taken above is also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Rangaswamaiah and Ors. v. Kamataka Lokayukta and Ors., : [1998]3SCR837 relied upon by Sri Rudragowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that even when an employee is sent on deputation, he continues to be an employee of the lender. It is useful to refer to the observation made by the Supreme Court at paragraph 22 which reads:
'The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are one, as already stated, in accepting that the police officers of the State on deputation continue to remain as public servants in the service of the State Government, as long as they are not absorbed in the Lokayukta. This legal position is absolutely unassailable because the State of Karnataka has merely lent the services of these officers to the Lokayukta and the officers continue to be employees of the State. In spite of the deputation of officers with the Lokayukta, the relationship of master and servant between the State of Karnataka and these officers does not stand terminated'.
7. Therefore, when the National College of Education, Shimoga, was admittedly admitted for grant and the petitioner continued to be an employee of the said institution till he was permanently absorbed at Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, with effect from 17th April, 1980, in my view, it is not permissible for the respondents to deny the services rendered by the petitioner for the period from 14th August, 1974 to 30th November, 1979 on the ground that Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere was not admitted for grant. Therefore, the impugned order Annexure-J is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order Annexure-J is quashed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to settle the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner taking into account the services rendered by him from 14th August, 1974 to 30th November, 1979 and also to pay interest at 12% per annum on the amount payable to the petitioner after two months from the date of his retirement till the date of settlement. Respondents 1 to 3 are given three months' time from today to comply with the directions given above. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to comply with the formalities, if any required, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. In terms stated above, this writ petition is allowed. Rule issued is made absolute. However, no order is made as to costs.
10. Sri V.K. Narayana Swamy, learned Government Pleader is given four weeks' time to file his memo of appearance.