B. S. SHIVALINGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing a common order dtd. 27/11/2023, whereby, their case in Application Nos.4727 to 4729/2023 has been negatived. In the said applications, they had made the following principal prayers:

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Apex Court in DEOKINANDAN PRASAD v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS, AIR 1971 SC 1409 & D.S.NAKARA v. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1983 SC 130, has laid down the broad parameters, within which, the rights of retirees for terminal benefits such as pension etc., have to be adjudged; Petitioners having entered the domain of public service way back in the years 1977 & 1978, they had obtained orders at the hands of Tribunal in the earlier rounds of litigations i.e., Applications Nos.6501-6503/2016, disposed off on 28/6/2018; the Tribunal specifically stated that their services be regularized w.e.f the date of their appointment; somehow, the Government in its own way construed this order and issued orders of regularization w.e.f. 1/2/1987 in respect of Petitioner Nos.1 & 3 and 14/9/1988 in respect of deceased husband of Petitioner No.2; the blood & sweat of the employees cannot go unrecognized and therefore, the Tribunal is not right in denying the relief in a wholesale way.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official Respondents vehemently opposes the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been structured. He also draws attention of the Court to the orders made by the Co-ordinate Bench in contempt jurisdiction reserving liberty to the Petitioners to lay challenge to the Endorsement dtd. 27/5/2019; but such a challenge has not been mounted by them. He also highlights alternate prayer of the Petitioners i.e., to count only five years of service for the purpose of sanctioning pension and therefore, more than what they have prayed for cannot be claimed. In respect of petitioner No.2, learned AGA contends that her husband during his lifetime having not taken up any proceeding, should be deemed to have waived whatever right he had.