STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M R SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are at a loss to understand why the appellants have come up with this writ appeal against a just order passed by the learned Single Judge. The few facts germane to the decision making are: the 1st respondent having served as a Manager in the establishment of the 2nd respondent-Institute retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 18-12-1994. He served the Institute as Manager for the period from 28-10-1973 to 18-12-1994. After retirement, he made a representation to the Director, Directorate of Kannada and culture-2nd appellant herein for extending pension and pensionary benefits to him in terms of Grant-in-Aid Code. His request was turned down by the 2nd appellant vide Endorsement dated 17-3-1999 marked as Annexure-D. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the 2nd appellant to consider his request, the 1st respondent filed Writ Petition No. 34512 of 1999 seeking quashing of Annexure-D and for a direction to the appellants herein to pay the retrial benefits to him. The writ petition was opposed by filing statement of objections. It was contended in the statement of objections that the petitioner's case is governed by separate set of Rules called in the Grant-in-Aid for Film Institutes in the State of karnataka (Film Acting and Playback Singing) Rules and in terms of those Rules, he is not entitled to seek pension and pensionary benefits and that general rules of Grant-in-Aid which are applicable to other employees are not applicable to the employees working in the film institute. The learned Single Judge having taken note of the provision of rule 6 of the Grant-in-Aid for Film Institutes in the State of Karnataka (Film Acting and Playback Singing) Rules, did not find merit in the contention raised by the appellants herein to refuse pensionary benefits to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and permitted the 1st respondent to make an application to the 2nd appellant seeking pensionary benefits and the 2nd appellant was directed to dispose of the same expeditiously.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Government Advocate Sri Deshraj for the appellants; Smt. Sheela Krishna, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri S. V. Shastri, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the order of the learned Single Judge and the material papers appended to the writ appeal.

(3.) THE order made by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable. It is true that a separate set of rules called the Grant-in-Aid for Film institutes in the State of Karnataka (Film Acting and Playback Singing)Rules has been framed. Generally speaking, those rules are applicable to the employees working in the film institutes. But, Rule 6 of the said rules provide: