Retired Village Accountant’s Pension Claim Gets Reconsideration After Post-1963 Entry; Karnataka HC Sets 8-Week Deadline

The respondent, a retired Village Accountant (Shanbhog), claimed service from 20 July 1970 to 5 May 1976 and sought pensionary benefits.

The State rejected his claim by endorsement dated 18 May 2015, principally because he entered service after 1 February 1963.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal set aside the endorsement and directed the State to reconsider the claim in light of the Government Order dated 26 April 2013 and earlier judicial pronouncements.

The State challenged that direction, arguing, among other things, that the respondent had not completed ten years of qualifying service and that his Tribunal application was delayed

The Government Order dated 26 April 2013, read with prior decisions of the High Court and Tribunal concerning pensionary benefits for similarly placed ex-Shanubhogs, required the respondent’s claim to be considered in that legal context; a claim could not be rejected solely on the stated ground of entry into service after 1 February 1963 without considering the relevant benefits and prior decisions.

The State invoked Rule 222 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules concerning qualifying service, but the Court left the applicability of the qualifying-service requirement to the competent authority on reconsideration.

The petition was considered under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court held that the Tribunal had not granted pension outright; it had only directed reconsideration of the claim in light of the Government Order and earlier decisions concerning similarly placed ex-Shanubhogs.

Accordingly, the State’s objections about the respondent’s appointment date and length of service were matters for the competent authority to examine during that reconsideration, in accordance with law, rather than grounds to invalidate the Tribunal’s direction.

The Court found no error warranting interference.

It directed the State to complete reconsideration of the respondent’s pension claim within eight weeks from receipt of the order, in accordance with law; it did not itself determine that the respondent was entitled to pension.

Any pending interlocutory application was held not to survive for consideration.