Karnataka HC Upholds Pension For Teacher With 13 Years’ Service After Officials Accepted His Retirement Without Verifying The 15-Year Minimum

The respondent, a primary school teacher appointed on 7 February 1995, applied for voluntary retirement on 1 February 2008, having completed 13 years, 4 months and 15 days of service. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions accepted the application on 7 June 2008, and the respondent was relieved on 30 June 2008.

The respondent later sought to withdraw his retirement application and requested pension; the authorities rejected his pension request on the ground that he had not completed 15 years of service. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal quashed the rejection and directed that pension be sanctioned, treating the period up to its order as additional qualifying service, but denied back wages for the relevant period. The State authorities challenged that order before the High Court.

Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules provides for retiring pension where a government servant is permitted to retire after completing at least 15 years of qualifying service, subject to the conditions in Rule 285(2). The Rule requires verification, in consultation with the Accountant General, that the minimum qualifying service has been completed before orders permitting voluntary retirement are issued.

An authority exercising a power under a rule must comply with the conditions prescribed for its exercise.

The Court found that the respondent had not completed 15 years of qualifying service when he applied for voluntary retirement. The Deputy Director nevertheless accepted the application without verifying the respondent’s qualifying service as required by Rule 285.

Because the authority failed to comply with the Rule before accepting the retirement application, the respondent could not be made to suffer the consequences of that administrative lapse by being denied pension. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s direction to grant pension, including its treatment of the period up to the Tribunal’s order as additional qualifying service.

The respondent was entitled to pension in accordance with Rule 285, with the period up to the Tribunal’s order treated as additional qualifying service; the Tribunal’s denial of back wages for the specified period also remained undisturbed.