B. RANGASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 28/5/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Application No.6308/2010.

(2.) The application filed before the Tribunal discloses that the petitioner was a District and Sessions Judge, who attained the age of Superannuation on30.04.1996 and was drawing pension of a sum of Rs.4,893.00 per month. The petitioner was appointed as the President of II Additional District Forum, Bengaluru Urban on full time basis in terms of a notification dtd. 7/10/1996. The appointment of the petitioner came to an end on 7/4/2001. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.2 issued a pay slip authorizing to draw a sum of Rs.12,607.00 less Rs.3,939.91 towards the pension and Pension equivalent to Gratuity (PEG) from 14/10/1996 till 7/4/2001 and accordingly, net amount of Rs.8,667.00was drawn by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 thereafter issued a revised pay slip dtd. 25/5/1997 authorizing to draw the pay and other allowance less pension of Rs.3,939.91. Again on 16/9/1999, respondent No.2 issued a revised pay slip authorizing the petitioner to draw the pay and other allowances less pension and PEG of Rs.3,940.00. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dtd. 15/7/2010 requesting to release the withheld pension and PEG amount. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.3 withheld the pension and PEG amount of Rs.9,939.91 per month, leaving a balance pension of Rs.1,826.00 and Rs.2,291.00 per month commencing from June 1997 till November 2001 amounting to a sum of Rs.1,28,378.00. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to respondent No.3 on 17/7/2010. The petitioner was not satisfied with the monthly salary fixed by respondent No.2 and thus, submitted a representation to respondent No.1 on 12/11/1999 seeking clarification as well as to issue a revised pay slip. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dtd. 20/12/1999, which read as follows:

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement, the petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal.