M RAJASEKHARAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short issue involved is one on some significance insofar as the petitioner before me is a retired member of the teaching profession. He opted for the u. g. c. scales of salary which meant that some revision had to be done and he was entitled to receive the arrears. He has retired in the year 1991 and when the arrears came to be ultimately paid, it was split into two portions. The petitioner was issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 7,620/-, dated 8-2-1994 and as regards the balance amount of Rs. 8,000/- he was given a pay order of the same date which was addressed to the post master of the basaveshwaranagar post office, Bangalore which amount was to be invested in national saving certificates. There is no dispute about the fact that this was pursuant to a government order which had been issued in culmination of various negotiations and correspondence with the federation. The government had directed that a certain portion of the arrears should be invested in the national savings schemes and obviously this step was well-intentioned as often when lump sum arrears are paid, the government takes the view that it is highly desirable that these amounts should not be just spent away and that they should be reinvested in the form of savings. For this purpose, directions are invariably issued that the whole or some portions of these arrears must be invested either in the provident fund or other forms of savings.

(2.) THE controversy has arisen because the petitioner contends that the government acting on representations from other teachers who had retired prior to 1990 has taken a decision that those who have retired prior to 30-3-1990 should be paid the entire amount of arrears in cash and that it is only in the case of the subsequent category of persons namely those who had retired after that date or are in service, that the proportional investment will have to be made. The petitioner states that he is a retired person and that his financial need is extremely real and genuine. He states that the six year national saving certificates will mature only in the year 2000 a. d. and that consequently it is both harsh and unreasonable to force him to have to invest the amount of Rs. 8,000/ -.

(3.) PETITIONER's learned Advocate has submitted that the dividing line which has been drawn as on 30-3-1990 is, artificial and unreal insofar as it seeks to make an arbitrary classification between two categories of retired employees without there being any rationale basis for this. Secondly what he contends is that the amount of arrears is the entitlement of the petitioner and that this cannot be forcibly taken away from him and invested without his consent. Thirdly what he submitted is that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of the emoluments in cash and that therefore the decision is bad.