STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. P. JAYAKANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, passed in Application No. 4234/2011 dated 6.9.2013.

(2.) THE respondent -Smt. P. Jayakantha was working as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the Health and Family Welfare Department for more than 34 years and on her superannuation, claim for pension was not settled mainly on the ground that she has not passed Kannada Language Examination as per Karnataka Civil Services (Services and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974. Therefore, she approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for redressal of her grievance by filing an Application No. 4234/2011. Her claim was contested by the petitioners herein on various grounds. It was contended before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal that she did not pass the Kannada Language Examination which was mandatory and therefore, her pension could not be settled. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has passed a detailed order and subsequently, allowed the application filed by the respondent herein. In fact, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 37861/2009 dated 5.1.2010. As could be seen from the records, the services rendered by the respondent was satisfactory and the said factual aspect was not denied by the petitioners herein. The request of the respondent was denied mainly on the ground that she has not passed the Kannada Language Examination.

(3.) THE Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Chief Engineer/Operation, Dakshin Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Mauj Khan and Others reported in : 2009 AIR SCW 4474. As could be seen from the Chief Engineer's case, it is held that the authorities having failed to take timely steps for declaration of her probation period indicates that the work of the applicant as a Government Servant was satisfactory and her failure to pass departmental examinations does not come in the way of declaring satisfactory completion of probation period. Therefore, it is a fit case, in which, requirement needs to be relaxed. Hence, the claim of the applicant needs to be considered. Taking into consideration the valid and cogent reasons assigned by the Tribunal, we do not find any ground to issue rule. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.