L. S. BALASUNDAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dtd. 22/2/2021 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A, whereby the request of the petitioner for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement and for grant of pensionary benefits has been denied.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sec. Officer (Technical) during 1970 by the Director of Sericulture and posted to erstwhile Government Spun Silk Mills, Channapatna. In the year 1980, the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') was formed consisting of four units, GSSM CPT, SWF Mysore, GSF TNP and GSP KKP. The petitioner continued in service in Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation till 1995. Due to some personal inconvenience, the petitioner requested the management to relieve him under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Due to non-existence of Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the Corporation, the petitioner submitted resignation letter and he was relieved from service on 30/12/1995. On 20/2/2016, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-D requesting for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Pursuant to his request, the Board has passed a resolution dtd. 26/9/2017 vide Annexure-J and recommended to the Government to consider the case of the petitioner under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and grant pensionary benefits, since similar benefit has been granted to other three employees. Since no action has been taken by the Government, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.37210/2018 and this Court by order dtd. 11/6/2019 has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of delay. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.A.No.3809/2019 and this Court by order dtd. 22/9/2020 has directed the Government to take further action for sanction of pensionary benefits to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, since no action has been taken by the Government, the petitioner filed C.C.C.No.30/2021 and the said contempt petition came to be disposed of 3/3/2021. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dtd. 22/2/2021 at Annexure-A, whereby the request of the petitioner for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement and for grant of pensionary benefits, has been denied. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in Government Spun Silk Mills in the year 1970. Later, in the year 1980, the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation was formed consisting of four units including Government Spun Silks Mills, Channapatna. Due to some personal problems, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 30/12/1995. Thereafter, he realized that he is entitled for pension and hence, he submitted a representation dtd. 20/2/2016 seeking for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He further contended that the case of similarly situated persons namely, Sri.M.P.Shivarudrappa, Mr.V.I.Mamadapur and Sri.G.R.Shivakumar, who have submitted resignation and later sought for conversion to voluntary retirement, has been considered and pensionary benefit has been granted to them. Therefore, the petitioner has also made a similar request. On consideration of petitioner's request, the Board has passed a resolution on 26/9/2017 and has taken a decision to recommend the case of the petitioner for voluntary retirement to the Government on the ground of parity. Inspite of the Board recommendations, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order at Annexure-A and the same is unsustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3809/2019 has given a clear direction to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of the pensionary benefits. Inspite of that, the impugned order has been passed denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The impugned order is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.A.No.3809/2019. He further contended that similarly situated persons like that of the petitioner, who have submitted the resignation and later converted as voluntary retirement, have been granted pensionary benefits. Only in respect of the petitioner, such a relief has been denied. This amounts to discrimination and violating the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, the learned counsel has submitted that in the affidavit dtd. 20/6/2024 filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2-State, it is stated that the petitioner has been directly appointed to the Corporation in the year 1980 on contract basis and he was not an employee, who has been transferred from the Government Spun Silk Mills. Since the petitioner is now 82 years, he is unable to file a reply to the said affidavit. Hence, with the above contentions, he sought for allowing the writ petition.