EKANTHA REDDY G Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's appointment as a Lecturer in the 4th respondent Aided Institution, with effect from 16.12.1981, was approved from the said date by order dated 7.8.1982 of the third respondent, while, the 5th respondent college was admitted to grant-in-aid by order dated 11.2.1987, of the 2nd respondent with effect from 16.7.1986. The petitioner having rendered total service of 26 years 15 days, retired on 31.12.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent Nos.3 to 5, it is alleged, reckoned 21 years 5 months 16 days as total service rendered by the petitioner, denying 4 years and 5 months of service when the 4th respondent institution was not admitted to grant-in-aid, to determine the quantum of pensionary benefits which the petitioner was entitled, on retirement, by order dated 22.3.2008, Annexure-'L'. Hence this Writ Petition for the following reliefs:

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the qualifying service to determine pensionary benefits includes the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 16.12.1981 to 16.07.1986, when the institution was not admitted to grant-in-aid. Learned Counsel places reliance upon the decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of V.T.S. Jeyabal and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Annexure- 'M' in W.P. No. 19431/2005 and connected petitions, dated 13.10.2006, answering in the affirmative, the question as to whether the employees of aided institutions were entitled to pensionary benefits by reckoning the total period of service to include the period when the institution was not admitted to aid. Learned Counsel points out to the order dated 3.11.2009 in W.A. No.450/2007 filed by the State, whence the Division Bench dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State and its authorities - respondents does not dispute the said legal position, but, contends that there is a delay of 1 year 6 months in preferring the Writ Petition calling in question the order impugned.