INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT Vs. S. SUNDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra Court appeal preferred under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed with a direction to the appellant herein to consider and grant the proportionate pension to the respondent in consonance to Rule 49(2)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short).

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 which is controlled by the Human Resource Development, Ministry of Government of India and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent joined the services of the appellant on 01.05.1991 at the age of 44 years as Associate Professor. The respondent, by a communication, was promoted as a Professor with effect from 17.05.1994. It is not in dispute that the respondent by a communication dated 04.05.2009 sought voluntary retirement, after rendering 18 years and 29 days of service. He was permitted to retire voluntarily from 30.05.2009. The respondent thereafter made a request to the appellant for grant of pension. However, the aforesaid prayer was not exceeded to by the appellant. Thereupon, the respondent filed petition in which a writ of mandamus was sought directing the appellant herein to accord proportionate pension in terms of Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules for rendering 18 years of service.

(3.) The appellant herein filed the statement of objections in which inter alia it was averred that Rule 49 of the Rules apply to the case of superannuation as well as voluntary retirement. It was further pleaded that an employee who completes 10 years of services is entitled to pension if he reaches the age of superannuation while in service. It was also averred that Rule 48(a) and Rule 49 are not applicable to the case of the respondent and merely because the respondent had completed more than 10 years of service, the same would not entitle him for proportionate pension. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 15.11.2012, by placing reliance on Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules, inter alia, held that the aforesaid provision relates to the employee who has completed 10 years of qualifying service but has not completed 20 years of qualifying service. Therefore, such person is eligible for proportionate benefit. Accordingly, the respondent was held entitled to the benefit of Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules and the appellant herein was directed to grant the benefit of proportionate pension in consonance to Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.