AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order bearing No. HMU/AV/S/L/3111/2008-09 dated 31-07-2008, vide Annexure-D, issued by the 5th Respondent and;
b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of the policy decision of the State Government, extending the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years to the Petitioners vide Annexure-A and B and also by adopting the said decision of the State Government and to extend all other service and other benefits which the Petitioner is entitled to in view of extension of superannuation till 60 years;
c) Declare that the date of coming into force of Rule 18(2) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Second Amendment Rules 2008) i.e. 17-9-2008 vide Annexure-G) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Government Order dated 28-7-2008 & 13-08-2008 (vide Annexures-A & B respectively) and;
d) Direct the Respondent to extend the benefit of Amended Rule 18(2) with effect from 17 7.2008 on par with the government order vide Annexure-J and extend the said benefit to the Petitioner also.
Insofar as the issue relating to the right of the Petitioner seeking benefit of the extension of service from 58 years to 60 years, the learned Single Judge while referring this petition to a Full Bench on 04.01.2011 has dealt with the said aspect and by relying on the judgment in Sri M. Lingaiah and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. in W.A. Nos. 3801-3804/2009 and connected matters, disposed of on 16.11.2009, has already held that the Petitioner would be entitled to the said benefit and the said direction has attained finality. Therefore, to the said extent, it is to be stated that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of continuing till the age of 60 years with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
The question however, for consideration is,
Whether the Petitioner would be entitled to the back salary for the period from the date on which she was relieved on attaining the age of 58 years onwards, since she was permitted to re-join the duty and continue thereafter till the age of 60 years?
The said question, in fact, was referred to the Full Bench by the learned Single Judge, since the learned Single Judge had noticed conflicting views on this aspect of the matter. The Full Bench while rendering its opinion on 14.02.2011 had taken note of the three different categories of employees, who would be available in such a situation. While answering the question which had been framed for consideration, the Full Bench has noticed, that on applying the principles noticed therein, the Petitioner in the in the instant case, will fall in the second category stated therein and had held that the Petitioner herein would be entitled to the back salary only from 20.05.2009 onwards and she would be entitled to continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Hence, insofar as the back salary is concerned, the said order is applied at the present juncture for disposal of this petition, holding that the Petitioner is entitled to the same from 20.05.2009 till she rejoined service.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that after attaining the age of 60 years, the terminal benefits, by including the consequential benefits has not been settled. It is needless to mention that since this petition has now been disposed of stating that she is entitled to consequential benefits, the Respondents would settle the same as expeditiously as possible.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.