Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2561 of 2003
PETITIONER:
H. Chandra Shekhar
RESPONDENT:
State of Karnataka & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/2004
BENCH:
CJI V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA & S.H. KAPADIA.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
O R D E R
The appellant herein was in employment as lecturer in
Geology in Hyderabad \026 Karnataka Education Society’s
Engineering College, Gulbarga, which is a government aided
institution. He remained in that capacity from 6th July, 1962 to
20th January, 1971. Subsequently, on 22nd of January, 1971, the
appellant was selected and appointed as a Geologist in the
Government Department of Mines & Geology through a
positive act of selection by the Public Service Commission,
Karnataka. The appellant retired from service on 29th February,
1996. The service conditions and the grant of pensionary
benefits are governed by the Karantaka Civil Service Rules,
1958. These Rules have been amended from time to time. The
appellant, after retirement, wrote to the Principal Secretary of
Government of Karnataka, Department of Commerce &
Industries for counting his past service rendered by him in the
government aided institution for the purpose of counting
qualifying service for settling his pensionary benefits. The
respondent calculated the pension of the appellant in terms of
amended Rule 248 of the aforesaid Rules. Aggrieved by the
said decision the appellant filed a petition before the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal and the same was rejected. A writ
petition filed against that order met with the same fate. It is
against that order the appellant has come before this Court by
way of special leave.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of either
unamended Rule 247A or Rule 248, whichever is more
beneficial to him. In the present case, it is found that the
appellant is entitled to have the benefit of unamended Rule
247A of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958. In fact the
appellant was within his rights to claim the benefit of
unamended Rule 247A. The counsel for the appellant states
that the appellant will claim the benefit of only additional 11
months and 20 days rounded-off to one year, and in total three
years. We, therefore, direct that if the appellant moves an
application in aforestated terms to the respondent within one
month for fixation of his pension, the respondent will consider
the application within a period of three months after the filing
of the application by the appellant, in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment under challenge
is set aside and the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2