Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1337 (KAR)

Gundappa v. Pri. Sec. Higher Education

2022-10-11

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in a Government Aided Arts and Commerce College, Mudalagi on 25/9/1989, and his probationary period was declared as satisfactory on 1/10/1992. After completing 23 years of service, the petitioner submitted an application with the third respondent to appoint him as an Associate Professor. On considering his application, the petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor in Kannada Department on 10/4/2012. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 28/4/2014. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dtd. 2/12/2014 with the first respondent to consider the prior service rendered by him in the Government Aided College for the purpose of pension. 2. The first respondent rejected the application submitted by the petitioner stating that the prior services rendered by him in an aided institution cannot be considered for fixing the pension against which he petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No.104477/2015. This Court, by order dtd. 8/3/2021 quashed the endorsement rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, and directed the first respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for counting of his qualifying service for the purpose of fixing pension by taking into consideration the prior services rendered by him in the aided institution, strictly in accordance with the Rules. 3. Thereafter, the first respondent has issued the impugned endorsement dtd. 3/8/2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner was appointed in the third respondent University after 1/4/2006 and in view of the amended rule i.e., Rule 2-C. of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, 'the Rules'), the petitioner is not entitled for counting of his services rendered in Government Aided College, against which the present petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Aided College on 25/9/1989, and Rule 2-C of the Rules is not applicable to the petitioner. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for counting of prior services rendered by him in the Government Aided College for the purpose of fixing pension. 5. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for counting of prior services rendered by him in the Government Aided College for the purpose of fixing pension. 5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the petitioner having been appointed in the third respondent-College after 2006, the petitioner is not entitled for counting of the services rendered by him in the Government Aided Institution as specified in Rule 2-C of the Rules and as such the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor in the year 2012 and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for counting of prior service rendered by him in Government Aided Institution as specified in Rule 2-C of the Rules. 7. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. A reading of Rule 224-B of the Rules indicates that every employee desirous of having the benefit of counting their previous service of additional years as qualifying service for pension, as the case may be under the Rules shall make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority within three months from the date of joining the Government service. 9. Rule 2-C of the Rules specifies that Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 2, Part IV of these Rules, shall not be applicable to new recruits to State Government service joining on or after 1/4/2006. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Aided Institution in the year 1989. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit under Rule 224-B of the Rules since he was appointed in the Government Aided institution prior to 2006 and after completing 23 years of service was appointed as an Associate Professor in the third respondent-University. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned endorsement dtd. 3/8/2021 issued by respondent NO.1, at Annexure-N, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned endorsement dtd. 3/8/2021 issued by respondent NO.1, at Annexure-N, is hereby quashed. iii) Respondent No.2 shall count the prior service rendered by the petitioner in the Government Aided Institution for the purpose of fixing pension in terms of Rule 224 of the Rules and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A. No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.