"Worked For 34 Yrs, State Wants To Play With His Life": Karnataka HC Directs Release Of Terminal Benefits For 70-Yr-Old Retired Teacher
Image by Hindustan Times
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a retired school teacher who has been fighting for his pension for the last 6 years. The court has directed the State Government and Rani Channamma University to release complete Death-cum-retirement benefits and encashment of privilege leave, including arrears of pension as claimed, within four weeks.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M.A Dhavaleshwar and said, “It is un-understandable as to why the petitioner, despite working for 34 years, has not been paid complete pension as also leave encashment and gratuity amounts. The State wants to play with the life of the petitioner.”
On 26-07-1982, the petitioner was appointed as a Professor in Sangolli Rayanna College, an aided institution receiving grants from the hands of the State. Thirty years thereafter, the College was declared to be a constituent college of the newly formed University, viz., Rani Chennamma University, Belagavi ('the University' for short). Therefore, the petitioner becomes an employee of the University college. On 31-08-2015, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation. No terminal benefits were paid.
After a plethora of correspondence between the University and the Government, a direction was issued by the Government that the University has to pay the terminal benefits out of the funds of the University.
The petitioner contended that merely because for the last three years the petitioner had become a Professor in the University, the pension of the petitioner for 33 long years of service was denied, and gratuity was not even paid. It was said that only for the sake of compliance in the contempt proceedings, certain make-believe payments were made by the respondents, and a substantial part of it is yet to be paid.
The government submitted that the petitioner cannot be paid pension for all the years of service. He is entitled to a pro-rata pension as his services were split with an aided Institution and the University. It is the University which has to pay the pension.
Findings:
On going through the records, the bench noted that for close to 5 years, not a rupee of pension was paid, all for the reason that the file of the petitioner was being moved from table to table for a decision as to who has to pay the pension. Left with no choice, the petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court.
Then it said, “The prayer is clear that he has to get close to ₹30 lakhs as terminal benefits. The objections are absolutely vague contending that the petitioner renders his services to the University and therefore, the University has to settle terminal benefits.”
Following which it observed “In these indecisive communications between the quarters of the Government and the University, who suffers is not the person who is wanting to obfuscate the issue, but the poor teacher is made running from pillar to post to get his terminal benefits.”
Court rejected the contention of the University for not paying pension due to the likelihood of audit objection. Thus, it held, “This by no stretch of imagination is a reason to dodge a teacher for ten years. Therefore, it becomes a case where a mandamus is to be issued by granting the prayer of the petitioner and directing that the pension of the petitioner be paid and report the same to this Court, failing which, the petitioner will have to explore another set of litigation.”
Appearance: Advocate Shivaraj C Bellakki for Petitioner.
HCGP Kirtilata R Patil FOR R1, R3, R4 AND R5.
Advocate Sangram S Kulkarni FOR R2
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
Case Title: M.A.DHAVALESHWAR AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.100271 OF 2022