K S JYANTHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are heard and disposed of together as they involve an identical issue.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P. No. 16129 of 2009 was initially appointed as an Assistant Surgeon in the year 1978 in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services. She was later deputed to the office of the second respondent ii the year 1984. It is her case that she was absorbed in the Bangalore City Corporation with effect from the year 1990. This was endorsed by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as "BBMP" for brevity), by an order dated 12-4-1991. This petitioner was promoted as a Medical Superintendent in the month of October 2003. The petitioner retired from service as Medical Superintendent on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-7-2007. It is her case that she has served for a total period of 29 years 3 months. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner is entitled to all pensionary benefits counting her service from 16.3.1978 to 31.7.2007. She was absorbed into the services of BBMP, in the interest of public service. This is evident from the order dated 12-4-1991. Though the petitioner has been granted pro rata pension for the service rendered in the State Government and the pro rata pension for the service rendered in the BBMP, on proportionate basis - the petitioner's claim for a combined pension has been denied by the BBMP on the ground that the petitioner being governed by the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "KCS Rules" for brevity) as the same have been made applicable to the employees of the BBMP and particular reference is drawn to Rule 235-A(1) of the KCS Rules. It is in the above background that these petitions are filed. The petitioner in W.P. No. 16130 of 2009 is placed in similar circumstances. She was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon in the year 1972 in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services. She was later deputed to the office of the BBMP on 20-7-1987. She was absorbed into the services of the BBMP with effect from 30-10-1990, in public interest. She retired from service as a Medical Superintendent on attaining the age of superannuation on 28-2-2005. However, her pension was paid pro rata towards her services in the State Government and her services with the BBMP, separately and hence the petition. The petitioner in W.P. No. 16131 of 2009 was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services on 20-8-1974. She was deputed to the BBMP in the year 1986. And retired from service on 31-3-2005. She is now aggrieved pro rata pension being paid separately by the Government for 16 years, 2 months and 7 days and the BBMP for a period of 14 years 3 months and 4 days, respectively.

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioners contends that payment of pro rota pension separately towards her service with the Government and the BBMP, the pensionary benefit stands reduced considerably. In this regard, the Counsel seeks to draw attention to the cases of three others who were similarly placed as the petitioners and who have been granted a single pension which is more than double the pension that, is drawn by the petitioners. The Counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the following decisions: Nagappa Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1985 Kar. 2152, wherein it is laid down that every person need not be driven to approach the Court, if a decision of the Court rendered in identical circumstances can be applied by the authorities, with reference to the same, to another's case. And decision in K.T. Veerappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2006 (4) Kar. L.J. 177 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has reiterated the above principle in order to avoid, unnecessary litigation. It is contended that in terms of a Government Order No. FD 70 SRS 77, dated 27-10-1977 entitles the petitioners for pension for the entire length of their service. It is pointed out that insofar as the petitioner in the first of these petitions has not been settled with pensionary benefits either in respect of services rendered with the Government or the BBMP. Insofar as the petitioner in the second petition is concerned, pro rata pension has been settled only in respect of her service rendered in the Government. And insofar as the petitioner in the third of the petitions is concerned - the pro rata pension is paid separately towards service rendered in the Government and the BBMP.