Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 910 (KAR)

Prema v. State Of Karnataka

2015-08-12

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2015
ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. - The petitioners are before this Court seeking direction to the Government to consider their applications for pensionary benefits and other benefits as accorded to them by this Court in Writ Petition No.26349 of 2004 vide order dated 18th December, 2008 and a further direction to the Government to extend the retiral and family pension and also pensionary benefits on par with the Government servants as per the Karnataka Civil Services Rules to the petitioners with effect from 1-9-2007 with all arrears of pension from 1-9-2007 till the date of disposal of the petition and continue to pay the family pension to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.84805 of 2013 even after the death of the husband of the petitioner. 2. The petitioners have contended that the Government of Karnataka had introduced a scheme known as "All India Hospital Post Partum Programme" in the year 1969 to provide Maternal and Child Health Care besides Family Welfare Services to the public. The said scheme was implemented at State level and at District levels. The said scheme was implemented and continued to operate under the administrative control of respondent No.1 and other departments. Respondents Nos.2 to 5 are Administratively responsible people, who have to take care of the persons who are appointed under the said scheme. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the cases that the petitioner's husband and the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.84805 and 84806 of 2013 respectively, worked throughout the State appointed under the said scheme. Therefore, the said persons who were working under the said scheme, held a civil post under the Government service and hence, were entitled to receive all the retiral and pensionary benefits from the Government. As the same was not properly considered, the husband of the petitioner (during his lifetime) in W.P. No. 84805 of 2013 and the petitioner in W.P. No.84806 of 2013 along with others approached this Court in a Writ Petition No.26349 of 2004. This Court at para 14 has observed as under: 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) The respondent State shall absorb the petitioners 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 into its services and assign them to equivalent posts, which each of them held immediately prior to the impugned order. (b) The respondent no. This Court at para 14 has observed as under: 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) The respondent State shall absorb the petitioners 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 into its services and assign them to equivalent posts, which each of them held immediately prior to the impugned order. (b) The respondent no. 6 shall be reimbursed, by the State Government, of monies paid to the petitioners and others pursuant to the interim order of this Court. (c) In the event the State Government is unable to absorb the petitioners into its services - the State shall compensate the petitioners by paying each of them 40% of all service benefits which they would normally have derived had they continued in regular service, till they attained their respective age of superannuation, and shall treat them as having retired from service as on the date of this order and shall provide pensionary benefits after taking into account the actual number of years of service rendered by each of them. (d) The respondent shall pay arrears of salary and other monies due as on date in addition to above." and has accordingly allowed the petition. 4. This judgment was challenged before this Court in W.A. No.6167 of 2009 by the State Government and others. Wife judgment dated 23-6-2010, the said writ appeal was dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Single judge and also gave clarification at paragraph 13 as follows: "13. Insofar as all those persons who have not reached the age of superannuation are entitled to absorption in Government service as directed by the learned Single Judge. If they are not absorbed, they are entitled to compensation as directed in the impugned order." 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it appears, the Government was also before the Supreme Court, wherein also, they were not successful. 6. During the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.84805 of 2013 and the petitioner himself in W.P.No.84806 of 2013, have made a representation to the respondents herein by way of legal notice dated 9-8-2013 and sought for all the reliefs granted to them by the learned Single Judge in the above said writ petition. But to their dismay, the said representations are not yet considered. In this background, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. But to their dismay, the said representations are not yet considered. In this background, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate has not produced any material to show that they have, in strict compliance of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.26349 of 2004, provided all the benefits to the petitioners herein. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon this Court to issue writ of mandamus directing respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 to consider the request made by the wife of the deceased and the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.84805 and 84806 of 2013 respectively and also to consider fresh representation, if any, made after passing of this order, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.26349 of 2004. This exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above said observations, both petitions are disposed off.