SMT. RATHNAMMA vs THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021







IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 20170 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE D.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/T NO.66, KOTUR VILLAGE
MATASANDRA POST
VARTUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560008.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOMA SUNDER RAO R., ADVOCATE)








AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K S R T C, RAMANAGARA DIVISION
BENGALURU MYSORE ROAD
RAMANAGAR-562159.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE)



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT VIDE REFERENCE
DATED 06.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION DENYING THE BENEFITS TO THE DECEASED
EMPLOYEE SRI D KRISHNAPPA WHO WAS ORDERED TO BE
RETIRED COMPULSORILY UNDER KSRTC COMPULSORY
RETIREMENT REGULATIONS, 1984 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN
PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


SUPREME COURT VIDE S.L.P.NO.8255/2015 DATED:
28.07.2017 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging the endorsement
dated 06.03.2020, vide Annexure-B, whereby the
petitioner’s request for leave encashment was rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner’s husband, late Krishnappa, was
working as a driver in the respondent-Corporation. While
he was in service, a departmental enquiry was initiated
against him, pursuant to which he was dismissed from
service by order dated 24.09.2010.
3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, he raised a
dispute before the Labour Court in I.D. No. 41/2010. The
Labour Court, by its order dated 22.01.2013, allowed the
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


dispute and directed the Corporation to reinstate the
workman into service with continuity of service.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation filed
a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 26172/2013,
while the workman also filed a writ petition in W.P. No.
32911/2013. This Court, by order dated 20.09.2013,
allowed the writ petition filed by the Corporation and
dismissed the writ petition filed by the workman.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the workman
preferred a writ appeal before this Court in W.A. No.
6403/2013, which came to be dismissed on 17.11.2014,
thereby confirming the order of dismissal passed by the
Corporation.
6. Thereafter, the workman filed Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 8255/2015 before the Apex Court. By order
dated 28.07.2017, the Apex Court modified the order of
dismissal by converting it into an order of compulsory
retirement.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


7. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the
Corporation seeking leave encashment. However, the said
request was rejected by the impugned endorsement dated
06.03.2020, vide Annexure-B. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present
writ petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
advanced the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the petitioner’s husband was compulsorily
retired from service. As per the Corporation’s Regulation
Circular dated 21.07.1988, an employee who is
compulsorily retired from service is entitled to leave
encashment. Contrary to the said circular, the respondent-
Corporation has issued the impugned endorsement
rejecting the petitioner’s request.
(ii) Secondly, the Apex Court, while disposing of
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8255/2015, converted the
order of dismissal into an order of compulsory retirement.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


Pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court, the Legal
Officer of the Corporation also recommended payment of
leave encashment to the petitioner. Despite the said
recommendation and the material available on record, the
respondent-Corporation issued the impugned endorsement
rejecting the petitioner’s request.
(iii) Thirdly, the petitioner is also entitled to gratuity,
provident fund benefits and pension. Hence, learned
counsel sought to allow the writ petition.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Corporation advanced the following
contentions:
(i) Firstly, there is no dispute regarding the
Corporation’s Circular dated 21.07.1988 relied upon by the
petitioner. As per Clause 6 of the said circular, an
employee who is compulsorily retired in the normal course
is entitled to leave encashment and pension. However, in
the present case, the petitioner’s husband was dismissed
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


from service on account of misconduct, and the order of
dismissal was subsequently modified by the Apex Court
into an order of compulsory retirement as a measure of
penalty. Therefore, the circular dated 21.07.1988 relied
upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
(ii) Secondly, as per the Circular dated 09.06.1980,
an employee who is compulsorily retired, removed or
dismissed from service as a measure of penalty, or who
resigns from service, is not entitled to leave encashment
or family pension. Hence, learned counsel contended that
the respondent-Corporation was justified in issuing the
impugned endorsement.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the writ petition papers.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband
was dismissed from service on 24.09.2010, following a
departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent-
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


Corporation. The said order of dismissal was modified by
the Labour Court in I.D. No. 41/2010, by its order dated
22.01.2013. The said order was challenged before this
Court by the Corporation in W.P. No. 26172/2013 and by
the workman in W.P. No. 32911/2013.
12. This Court, by order dated 20.09.2013, allowed
the writ petition filed by the Corporation and dismissed the
writ petition filed by the workman. The said order was
subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court
in W.A. No. 6403/2013, which came to be dismissed on
17.11.2014.
13. Aggrieved by the same, the workman
approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 8255/2015, wherein the Apex Court passed
the following order:
“In the singular facts and circumstances, it
would meet the ends of justice, if the order of
dismissal of the petitioner is converted into one of
compulsory retirement.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


We make it clear that this order has been
passed in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, and will not be treated to be a
precedent for any purpose.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions,
stand disposed of.”
14. Therefore, it is evident that the order of dismissal
of the petitioner’s husband was modified by the Apex
Court into an order of compulsory retirement. As per the
Circular dated 09.06.1980 issued by the Corporation,
employees who are compulsorily retired, removed or
dismissed from service as a measure of penalty, as well as
those who resign from Government service, are not
entitled to leave encashment or family pension. The
relevant portion of the said Circular is extracted below:
“The Government of Karnataka, in their Order No.
FD 25 SKP (3) 76 dated 21-10-1976, have been
pleased to order that a Government employee may
at his option, be given the benefit of encashing the
earned leave at his credit at the time of
Superannuation, subject to a maximum period of
120 days; the cash payment being the equivalent
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


of the leave salary the Government employee
would have been entitled to receive, had he actually
been sanctioned the leave for the said period, as on
the date of his actual retirement. Also, in the case
of a Government employee who dies while in
Government service, the person who is entitled to
receive family pension shall be paid the cash
equivalent of the leave salary calculated on the
same lines as indicated above in respect of the
Earned Leave at the credit of the Government
employee on the date of his death subject to a
maximum of 120 days. This benefit has been
extended to Government employees compulsorily/
Voluntarily retired under Rules 285 of the KCSR,
retiring on invalid pension; and re-employed or
given extension of service on the date of their
superannuation.
The above benefit is not extended to those
who are compulsorily retired or removed or
dismissed from service as a measure of penalty or
to those who resign from Government service.”
15. Therefore, since the petitioner’s husband was
compulsorily retired from service as a measure of penalty,
the respondent-Authority was justified in issuing the
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


impugned endorsement rejecting the petitioner’s request
for leave encashment.
16. The Circular dated 21.07.1988 relied upon by the
petitioner, particularly Clause 6 thereof, pertains to
employees who retire or/are compulsorily retired from
service in the normal course and provides for their
entitlement to leave encashment. Clause 6 of the said
Circular is extracted below:

“6. Payment of accumulation in case of
Compulsory/ Voluntary Retirement:

Where an employee ordered to be retired
compulsorily or an employee retired voluntarily he
shall be eligible to receive in full the accumulated
Provident Fund, Proportionate Gratuity if any
eligible under the relevant Rules/Regulations and
encashment of accumulated leave as is applicable
to employees retiring in the normal course, subject
to such limits and conditions as prescribed in this
behalf.”
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58060
WP No. 20170 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010273152021


17. In the present case, the petitioner’s husband was
compulsorily retired from service as a measure of penalty.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to leave
encashment. Accordingly, the endorsement issued by the
respondent-Authority vide Annexure-B does not suffer
from any illegality warranting interference by this Court.
18. As regards the petitioner’s grievance concerning
gratuity and provident fund (PF) benefits, the same does
not fall within the scope of the present writ petition. If the
petitioner is entitled to any such benefits, she is at liberty
to avail herself of the remedies available to her in
accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE

CM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20