ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: "(i) To quash the pension proposal dated nil forwarded by the respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B; (ii) To direct the respondents to include the temporary services rendered by the petitioner for a period of eight (8) years as qualified service and fix the pension; (iii) To direct the respondents to settle the pension and pensionary benefits entitled to by the petitioner forthwith, with interest at 18 percent per annum for the delayed period. (iv) Allow the writ petition with costs. (v) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows. 3. The petitioner was appointed by respondent No.3 as a Stop-gap Lecturer on temporary basis on 15.04.1991. The petitioner's services were regularised on 05.06.1998. He retired from service on attaining the age of sup on 30.05.2020. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not include in the pension proposal, the temporary service rendered by the petitioner from 1990 to 1998, for the fixation of pension, which the petitioner is entitled to, as per Rule No.226 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. However, the respondents did not settle the pensionary benefits. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No.7094 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 20.04.2021, issued a direction to the respondents to settle the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 4. The respondents are not settling the pensionary benefits entitled to by the petitioner despite the direction issued by this Court to settle the pension and pensionary benefits. 5. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, instead of complying the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.7094 of 2021, initiated a departmental enquiry. A Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No.35731 of 2019 challenging the validity of the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2021. Though the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in 2019, it was concluded in the month of February 2022 itself, and respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not taken any action to settle the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 6. Though the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in 2019, it was concluded in the month of February 2022 itself, and respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not taken any action to settle the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 6. It is contended that the non-inclusion of the temporary services rendered by the petitioner as a qualifying service to fix the pension by respondent Nos.4 and 5 is arbitrary and erroneous. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure 'B', filed this writ petition. 7. The respondent-State filed a statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is contended that the College authorities have initiated a disciplinary enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. It is also contended that the enquiry officer submitted a report against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P. No.35731 of 2019. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has retired from service on obtaining the age of superannuation on 30.05.2020. The said writ petition was dismissed. 8. It is contended that the College authorities have not submitted the pension papers to the concerned authorities. As such, he made a representation and thereafter, the College authorities replied to the said representation of the petitioner stating that an enquiry is initiated against him. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the enquiry proceedings. It is contended that in compliance with the order passed by this Court, the respondents have decided to forward the pension proposal of the petitioner to respondent No.3 and the same was received. 9. It is also contended that as per the provisions contained in Clause (5) of the Government Order dated 03.10.1981, the petitioner was initially appointed as a temporary Stopgap Lecturer in English in respondent No.5/Institution. The said temporary appointment was later on approved by respondent No.3 on 15.04.1991 for the Academic Year 1990-91. It is contended that the College authorities after accepting the report, passed a Resolution dated 27.04.2022 resolving to withhold two annual increments and also impose Rs.5 lakhs penalty for the misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is contended that the respondents have rightly issued the impugned endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition. 10. It is contended that the College authorities after accepting the report, passed a Resolution dated 27.04.2022 resolving to withhold two annual increments and also impose Rs.5 lakhs penalty for the misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is contended that the respondents have rightly issued the impugned endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent- State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed in 1991 and the petitioner's post was admitted for grant-in-aid on 05.06.1998. The petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.05.2020. 12. Respondent No.1 while fixing the pension of the petitioner has not considered the past services of more than 8 years rendered by the petitioner. Further, he also submits that as per the Order of the Government of Karnataka vide Annexure "R12" which discloses that the the previous service without any break as a Lecturer in the University, College, National Laboratory or CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, etc., shall be counted for the placement as a Lecturer in the Senior Scale or Selection Grade. 13. He also contended that the ad hoc service of more than one year duration can be counted, provided (i) the ad hoc service was of more than 1 year duration; (ii) S/he was appointed on the recommendation of the Board of Appointment or duly constituted Selection Committee; (iii) S/he was selected in permanent post in continuation of ad hoc service without any break. 14. The respondents, without considering the said Government order, had passed the impugned endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 15. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the impugned endorsement may be set aside and the matter be remitted to respondent No.2, in which event, respondent No.2 will reconsider the matter in terms of the Government Order dated 15.11.1999 vide Annexure "R12". He further submits that a direction may be issued to respondent No.4 to forward the appointment order of the petitioner issued as per Annexure 'B' and after receipt of the papers from respondent No.4, respondent No.2 will consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 16. He further submits that a direction may be issued to respondent No.4 to forward the appointment order of the petitioner issued as per Annexure 'B' and after receipt of the papers from respondent No.4, respondent No.2 will consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that respondent No.4 would send a proposal enclosing Annexure 'B' to the Government. 17. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 18. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on temporary basis on 15.04.1991. His services were regularised on 05.06.1998. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.05.2020. After retirement, respondent No.2 has provisionally settled the pension. However, while settling the pension, respondent No.2 did not consider the previous service rendered by the petitioner. 19. From the perusal of the statement of objections filed by the State, respondent No.4 has contended that a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and also the enquiry was concluded and the disciplinary authority has passed an order of punishment. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of punishment was later on withdrawn. 20. Before fixing the pension and other benefits respondent No.2 has not taken into consideration the Government Order dated 15.11.1999 vide Annexure "R12". 21. As per Clause (17) of the Government Order, which provides for counting of past service, which reads as follows: " 17. Counting of past service: (a) Previous service without any break as lecturer in a university, college, national laboratory or CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR and as a UGC research scientist shall be counted for placement as lecturer in senior scale/selection grade. (b) Counting of such past service shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) The post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of lecturers. (2) The qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of lecturer. (3) The candidates should have applied for direct recruitment through the proper channel. (4) The concerned lecturers possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC for appointment as lecturer. (5) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the prevailing State Government orders. (3) The candidates should have applied for direct recruitment through the proper channel. (4) The concerned lecturers possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC for appointment as lecturer. (5) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the prevailing State Government orders. (6) The appointment was not ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. (7) Ad-hoc service of more than one year duration can be counted provided. (i) The ad-hoc service was of more than one year duration. (ii) He/she was appointed on the recommendation of the board of appointment or duly constituted selection committee. (iii) He/she was selected to the permanent post in continuation of ad-hoc service without any break. Provided that the local candidates/contract lecturers are not eligible for counting of service in view of the decision of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in application No.2929 to 2943/94 dated 4-4-1996 and in SLP (Civil) No. 22555-22578/96 dated 21-4-1997. Also, the previous service rendered as stop-gap lecturers before regularization is not counted for placement." 22. From the perusal of Clause 17 of the Government order dated 15.11.1999, makes it clear that the previous service without any break as a Lecturer in the University shall be counted for the placement as a Lecturer. 23. As per Sub-clause (b)(7)(i) of Clause 17, which provides that the ad hoc service for more than 1 year duration can be counted, provided the ad hoc service was more than 1 year duration and s/he was appointed on the recommendation of the Board of Appointment or duly constituted by a Selection Committee. 24. It is an undisputed fact that, in the instant case, the petitioner has rendered ad hoc service for more than one year duration and further, he was appointed on the recommendation of the Board of Appointment. Thus, the petitioner has fulfilled the requirements of clause 17 of the Government Order dated 15.11.1999. Respondent No.2 without considering the said aspect has proceeded to pass the pension proposal vide Annexure 'B'. 25. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that respondent No.2 will reconsider the pension proposal of the petitioner, subject to the condition that respondent No.4 shall forward all the relevant papers of the petitioner to respondent No.2. 26. Respondent No.2 without considering the said aspect has proceeded to pass the pension proposal vide Annexure 'B'. 25. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that respondent No.2 will reconsider the pension proposal of the petitioner, subject to the condition that respondent No.4 shall forward all the relevant papers of the petitioner to respondent No.2. 26. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER: (I) The writ petition is allowed. (II) The impugned pension proposal forwarded by respondent No.2 vide Annexure 'B' is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2. (III) Respondent No.4 is directed to send all the necessary documents, including the petitioner's appointment order vide Annexure "B", to respondent No.2 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and thereafter, respondent No.2 is directed to re- consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of the necessary documents from respondent No.2. (IV) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.