SADASHIV Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired Inspector of the Police Department of the State Govenment. has presented this writ petition praying for the issue oi a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to finalise his pension and to pay the amounts due to him on that account as also the amount of death-aim retirement gratuity, in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: - The petitioner was appointed as Sub- Inspector of Police in the erstwhile State of Bombay on 1-7-1938. He was removed from service, by an order made by the former State of Bombay, on 1-7-1948. He filed a Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 1949 in the court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Belgaum, for a declaration that his removal from service was illegal and void. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, but his C.A.No. 304 of 1952 before the District Judge, Belgaum, was allowed. The second appeal preferred by the State of Bombay before the Bombay High Court was transferred to this Coust consequent on the re-organisation of States. The said appeal was dismissed on 21-8-1958. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated on 16-8-1962 in view of the decree made by the civil court declaring that the removal of the petitioner from service was wrongful. The Government also paid to the petitioner the arrears of salary from the date of dismissal upto the date of reinstatement. The petitioner retired from service on 11-9-1970. Thereafter, the Government secured information to the effect that during the period when the petitioner was out of service, he was gainfully employed in the service of the Burma Shell Company. Therefore The Government was of the view that it should not have paid to the petitioner the sum equivalent to the salary drawn from the Bunna Shell Company. As the petitioner had retired from service, the Government had no other alternative than to file a civil suit for the recovery of the said amount. Accordingly, the State Government has tiled a civil suit in O.S. No. 30 of 1974 before the court of Civil Judge, Belgaum. The suit is said to be pending. In view of the suit filed by the State Government for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 78,300-90 from the petitioner, the State Government has declined to settle the pension, arid gratuity amounts due to the petitioner. Questioning the legality of the with-holding of the pension and gratuity, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: whether the State Government has the power to withhold the pension and gratuity amount due to the petitioner?