SOMASHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has declined to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant from service under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958. The appellant -petitioner and six others were all working as Civil Judge, Senior Division in the Judicial Department of the Government of Karnataka except for one, who was working as Civil Judge, Junior Division. Invoking the powers conferred under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958, they were compulsorily retired from service by notification dated 22.05.2006. Challenging the said notification, the appellant -petitioner herein preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 5842/2012. His grievance was the notification did not disclose any public interest. Three months notice before issuance of the notification is a pre -condition, which has not been issued.

(2.) THIS Court in W.P. No. 30240/2009, which is decided on 03.01.2012 had quashed the said notification in the writ petition filed by others, who are also compulsorily retired under the very same notification. The learned Single Judge found that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 30240/2009 had been set -aside in writ appeal No. 623/2012 and connected matters by an order dated 20th September, 2012 and therefore, reliance of the said judgment is of no assistance. The proviso to sub -rule (4) of Rule 285 provides for either three months notice or payment of three months salary in lieu of the same. Admittedly, after the notification, the petitioner -appellant has been paid three months salary, which he has received. He further held that the petitioner therein was sitting on the fence, watching the proceedings in another writ petition and only when the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in W.P. No. 30240/2009, he had preferred the writ petition basing the same on the aforesaid judgment. When that judgment is set -aside by the Appellate Court, the petitioner has no case. For the aforesaid reasons, he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) WE do not see any merit in either of the contentions. It is only in public interest that a Government Servant can be compulsorily retired under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 285. The said provision is invoked and it is clearly mentioned in the notification. It is not the requirement of law that, in the notification, it should be mentioned 'in public interest'. It is exercised in public interest under the aforesaid provision and therefore, we do not see any substance in the said contention. Insofar as Article 311 of the Constitution is concerned, these Rules are framed under the second proviso to this Article 309 of the Constitution. The said Rule provides for compulsory retirement with three months notice or payment of three months salary after such termination. Admittedly, in this case, no three months notice was given, but three months salary has been paid from the date of retirement. With this, the requirement of law is complied with. We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed.