B. Puttagiriyanna (Since Deceased) vs State of Karnataka and Others

Ravi Malimath, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 25-11-2011, passed in W.P. No. 20601 of 2009, by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the petitioners have filed the present appeal. The facts would show that the petitioner was appointed on 1-3-1965. His services were terminated on 6-3-1973, on the ground that his appointment was irregular. From thereon, various proceedings were initiated by him before various forums. Ultimately, during the pendency of the proceedings, he attained superannuation. He continued in services for a period of 30 years by virtue of interim orders granted to him permitting him to continue in services. After his retirement, since his retiremental benefits were not settled, he made a representation to the respondents to consider the same. The same was rejected. Hence, he filed a writ petition which was dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

The learned Counsel for appellants contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. That the petitioner having put in services of almost 30 years, with the respondent from the years 1965 to 1995, he is entitled for all retiremental benefits. He should not be denied his retiremental benefits, since admittedly, he has put in service which entitles him for the retiremental benefits.

While considering his plea, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the initial appointment was itself irregular and there is no question of granting any pensionary benefits. That he has continued in service only by virtue of interim orders granted by Courts uninterruptedly. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, wherein it was held that unless a person was appointed against the sanctioned post and has worked continuously for a period of ten years, without the aid or assistance of the interim orders passed by the Courts, his case for regularisation cannot be considered and consequently, he will not be entitled to any pensionary benefits. In that view of the matter, since the appellant would not come under the exception carved out in the said judgment, the writ petition was dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with facts and Law. When the appointment itself is irregular no pensionary benefits can be granted to him. It is opposed to Law. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for interference. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.

Sri D. Vijaya Kumar, learned Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks.