The State Of Karnataka vs Prabhakar Rao S/o Late Hanumanth Rao
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
255-DB
of 2024
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 100578 o
CNR: KAHC0200147920
024
D
IN THE HIGH
H COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
IS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
DATED THI
PRESENT
THE HON'B
BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'
BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT PETI
ITION NO. 100578 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF K
REP. BY THE SE
DEPARTMENT O
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 560
KARNATAKA,
CRETARY,
F REVENUE,
A,
0001.
2. THE DEPUTY CO
BELLARY DISTR
BELLARY-58310
3. THASILDAR,
BELLARY DISTR
BELLARY -58310
OMMISSIONER,
ICT,
01.
ICT,
01.
,
4. THE ACCOUNTA
PARK HOUSE RO
BENGALURU 560
NT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA ( A AND E),
OAD,
Digitally signed
by PRATIBHA M
PATIL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.29
14:17:05 +0530
0001.
TIONERS
…PETIT
HIREMATH, HCGP)
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. H
AND:
1. SRI. PRABHAKA
AGED ABOUT 72
NOW RESIDING
BEHIND OLD PO
SHIRAJAPPA TA
BELLARY DISTR
AR RAO S/O LATE HANUMANTH RAO,
2 YEARS, RETD. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
AT HATCHOLLI,
OLICE STATION,
LUKA,
ICT- 583114.
ONDENT
OCATE)
…RESPO
HA S. JOIS AND SRI. S. Y. RODAGI, ADVO
(BY SRI. RANGANATH
THIS WRIT PET
OF THE CONSTITUTI
AND 227
WRIT OF
TITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 A
ION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A W
- 2 -
255-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 100578 o
CNR: KAHC0200147920
024
HON’BLE
CERTIORARI QUASHI
KARNATAKA STATE
IN APPLICATION
ANNEXURE-A AND ET
THIS PETITION
GROUP, THIS DAY, O
CORAM: HON'BLE M
AND
HON'BLE M
ING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY H
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI
NO. 11184/2021 DATED 08-12-2022
TC.
BENCH
2 VIDE
N, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARIN
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NG IN’B’
MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
ORAL ORDER
N'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
(PER: HON
The petitio
lling in
oners-State is before this Court ca
rnataka
question an order
dated 08.12.2022 passed by the Kar
1
tive Tribunal, Belagavi , in App
plication
State Administrat
de the
No.11184/2021, b
by which the Tribunal set asid
ndent’s
endorsement date
ed 18.05.2015 rejecting the respo
ners to
claim for pensiona
ary benefits and directed the petition
r dated
consider his case i
in the light of the Government Orde
nal and
26.04.2013 and the
e earlier pronouncements of the Tribu
this Court.
2. Heard S
h Court
mt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High
atha S.
Government Pleade
er for the petitioners, and Sri Rangan
ent.
Jois and Sri S.Y. Ro
odagi, learned counsel for the respond
1
Hereinafter referred t
o as the ‘Tribunal’
- 3 -
255-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 100578 o
CNR: KAHC0200147920
024
3. The facts
s, adumbrated, are as follows:
3.1. The is
sue with regard to the entitlem
ent of
Shanubhogs/Hered
itary Village Accountants to pen
sionary
benefits came to b
be considered by this Court in a plet
hora of
petitions, culminat
ing in orders recognizing such entitl
lement,
which was therea
fter addressed by the Government
t Order
dated 26.04.2013
3. The respondent is a retired
Village
Accountant (Shanb
bhog), who claims to have served b
between
20.07.1970 and 0
05.05.1976 and thereafter continued
d as a
deemed Village Ac
ccountant. His claim for pensionary b
benefits
came to be rejecte
ed by an endorsement dated 18.05.20
015, on
the ground that he
e had entered service after 01.02.19
63 and
was, therefore, n
ot covered by the aforesaid Gove
rnment
Order. Aggrieved
by the said endorsement, the resp
pondent
approached the
Karnataka State Administrative Tr
ribunal,
Belagavi Bench, in
Application No.11184/2021, contendi
ng that
similarly placed e
x-Shanubhogs appointed after 01.0
02.1963
had been extended
d the benefit of pensionary benefits un
der the
earlier orders of th
his Court and the Tribunal. The Tribu
unal, by
the impugned o
rder dated 08.12.2022, set asid
de the
- 4 -
255-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 100578 o
CNR: KAHC0200147920
024
der the
endorsement and
directed the petitioners to consid
respondent’s case
in the light of the Government Orde
r dated
26.04.2013 and the
e earlier pronouncements of the Tribu
nal and
this Court. The St
tate, claiming to be aggrieved by th
he said
order, is now befor
e this Court.
4. The lea
arned High Court Government P
Pleader,
Smt. Girija S. Hirem
math, would submit that the responde
ent was
appointed as a S
hanbhog only on 20.07.1970, muc
h after
01.02.1963, and th
herefore, would not be entitled to pen
sionary
benefits under the
Government Order dated 26.04.201
13. She
would further subm
mit that the respondent had rendered
service
only from 20.07.1
970 to 05.05.1976 and had not com
mpleted
the minimum qual
ifying service of ten years prescribed
d under
Rule 222 of the Ka
rnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules
, 1966.
She would contend
d that the Tribunal failed to apprecia
ate that
the benefit extend
ed in the earlier decisions was in th
he facts
obtaining in thos
e cases and could not be mecha
anically
extended to the re
espondent. She would also contend t
hat the
application before
the Tribunal, having been filed in th
he year
2021 challenging
the endorsement dated 18.05.201
5, was
- 5 -
255-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 100578 o
CNR: KAHC0200147920
024
setting
barred by limitation
n. On these grounds, she would seek
aside of the impugn
ned order.
5. The lear
rned counsel Sri Ranganatha S. Jo
ois and
Sri S.Y. Rodagi, a
ppearing for the respondent would s
support
the impugned ord
der, contending that similarly plac
ed ex-
Shanubhogs appo
inted even after 01.02.1963 have
e been
extended the bene
efit of pensionary benefits by this Cou
urt and
the Tribunal. He wo
ould submit that the Tribunal was, the
erefore,
justified in settin
ng aside the endorsement and d
irecting
consideration of t
he respondent’s claim in the light
of the
Government Order
r dated 26.04.2013 and the earlier
judicial
pronouncements.
6. We have
e given our anxious consideration
to the
submissions made
e by the learned High Court Gove
rnment
Pleader and the
learned counsel for the responden
nt, and
perused the materi
al on record.
7. The afore
e-narrated facts are not in dispute. Th
hey are,
in fact, a matter of
f record. The issue, at this juncture, l
ies in a
narrow compass, a
as to whether the respondent is ent
itled to
- 6 -
255-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 100578 o
CNR: KAHC0200147920
024
r dated
pensionary benefits
s in terms of the Government Order
26.04.2013, notwit
thstanding his appointment after 01.0
02.1963
and the period of
service rendered by him; and wheth
her the
order of the Tribun
nal is in consonance with the princip
les laid
down in law.
8. The iss
ue with regard to the entitlem
ent of
Shanubhogs to pe
nsionary benefits attained finality wh
hen the
order was passed b
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Cour
t in the
year 2010, direct
ting consideration of their entitlem
ment to
pension. The Gove
ernment thereafter issued the Gove
ernment
Order dated 26.04
.2013. The respondent, who claims t
to have
served as a Shanbh
hog from 20.07.1970 to 05.05.1976,
had his
claim for pensiona
ary benefits rejected by the endor
sement
dated 18.05.2015,
on the ground that he had entered
service
after 01.02.1963. I
In the light of the orders passed by t
the Co-
ordinate Bench of
this Court and the subsequent Gove
rnment
Order, the respon
dent’s claim could not have been r
rejected
without considerat
tion of the benefit extended to s
imilarly
placed ex-Shanubh
hogs. The Tribunal, therefore, set as
ide the
endorsement and
d directed the State to conside
er the
- 7 -
255-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 100578 o
CNR: KAHC0200147920
024
r dated
respondent’s case
in the light of the Government Orde
26.04.2013.
9. The claim
m of the respondent for pensionary b
benefits
was required to be
e examined in the light of the Gove
ernment
Order dated 26.04
4.2013 and the orders passed by this
s Court
and the Tribunal
in the cases of similarly place
ed ex-
Shanubhogs. The
respondent’s claim, however, came
e to be
rejected by the en
dorsement dated 18.05.2015, princip
pally on
the ground that he
e had entered service after 01.02.196
63. The
Tribunal, upon con
nsideration of the earlier orders, foun
nd that
the claim required
reconsideration and accordingly direc
cted the
petitioners to cons
sider the same in the light of the af
foresaid
Government Orde
er and orders. The Tribunal ha
as not
straightaway grant
ted pensionary benefits to the respo
ondent,
but has only direct
ted consideration of his claim in acco
ordance
with the law.
10. In such
h circumstances, the contention
of the
petitioners with re
egard to the date of appointment a
and the
qualifying period of
f service would have to be examined
by the
competent authorit
ty while considering the respondent’s
s claim.
- 8 -
255-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 100578 o
CNR: KAHC0200147920
024
oes not
The impugned orde
er, which directs such consideration, d
call for interference
e.
11. In the li
ight of no error found in the order
of the
Tribunal, we find n
no merit in this petition. The petition
stands
rejected, with a d
direction to the petitioners to comple
ete the
exercise of recon
nsideration of the respondent’s cla
aim for
pensionary benefits
s, within an outer limit of eight week
ks from
the date of receipt
t of a copy of this order. It is need
dless to
observe that such
consideration shall be in accordanc
ce with
law.
12. As a
consequence, the pending interlo
ocutory
application, if any,
does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
PMP
CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.:
61