Smt. C. Nalini vs State of Karnataka and The Karnataka Board of Homeopathic Systems of Medicine

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ''B'' group is taken up for final disposal.

The State has not filed its statement of objections. The Respondent No. 3 is served and remains absent. Hence the petition is considered for final disposal.

The case of the Petitioner is as follows:

The Petitioner had put in 37 years of service in the third Respondent as First Division Assistant and retired from service on 31.1.2006. The Government by its order dated 24.2,2006 accorded approval for payment of terminal benefits including pension on the letter of the third Respondent dated 15.3.2006. The first Respondent however unilaterally and without any valid reason, withdrew its order dated 24.2.2006, by an order dated 28.3.2006. Hence, the Petitioner has filed this petition.

It is pointed out that the Karnataka Homoepathic Petitioners Act, 1961, provides for the establishment of a Homoepathic Registration Tribunal. The object and functions is to the effect that it registers Homoepathic Doctors under the State and issues certificates to that effect. The fees that is collected forms the income of the Tribunal Apart from this the Tribunal receives donations and other sums from the Government. The Petitioner was initially appointed on a temporary bask and with effect from 01.04.1987, the Petitioner was made a permanent employee of the Board and thereafter, had retired from service, as already slated. The Petitioner had submitted her papers seeking pension and other terminal benefits. The Government by its order dated 28.3.2006, withdrew its earlier Government order approving the grant of pensionary benefits. No reasons are assigned in withdrawing the same, except the possible suggestion by the President of the Board to the effect that the Act does not provide for grant of pensionary benefits to Its employees and that the State Government has passed the order withdrawing the approval The Petitioner thereafter made representations which were not considered, Therefore, the Petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 6212/2006 seeking to quash the Government order withdrawing the approval. The said writ petition was allowed, after hearing the Respondents and the matter was remitted, with a direction to consider the matter afresh. The direction was not complied with and the Petitioner initiated contempt proceedings. In the contempt proceedings the first Respondent filed an affidavit to state that it had taken a decision and that as regards the representation of the Petitioner, it had been communicated to the third Respondent, As per the order passed by the first Respondent, the third Respondent was directed to pay 30 months'' salary last drawn, as a lumpsum payment, This was not in consonance with the pensionary and retirement benefits given to other employees, who were similarly placed. The Petitioner however, received the amount, namely, 30 months basic pay last drawn by her fey way of a cheque without prejudice to bar rights to claim pensionary aid other retirement benefits.

It is contended that the farther claim of the Respondent that it is an autonomous body and does not receive any grant from the State is an incorrect statement The Petitioner has produced Annexure-N to demonstrate that the Board was receiving grants till the year 1987-88 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention to Annexure-B, which are extracts of proceedings of the meetings of the Board, whore it is resolved to adopt the Karnataka Civil Services Recruitment Rules in respect of leave salary, travelling allowance, pension, etc. and by a further extract dated 25.5.1988, it is specially resolved that insofar as pension, gratuity and. other benefits to the staff of the Board are concerned, the Board shall extend the same. It was specifically resolved that the pension DCRG etc as is payable to Government employees be extended to the employees in the Board, who were not many in number. In view of this, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner being denied the pensionary benefits is on a misinterpretation of the existing position and in view of the express decision taken to equate the service conditions of the employees of the Board with that of Government employees, the Petitioner would be entitled to pensionary and retirement benefits.

Since the Respondent No. 3 having been served remains silent, the petition averments would have to be accepted.

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand, would submit that the instructions have been received from the first Respondent to state that the Board has passed, a resolution in the year 2002 to the effect that earlier resolution passed by the Board are annulled and therefore, any resolution passed earlier whereby, there is an intention to equate the service conditions 01 the employees of the Board with that of toe Government employees is no longer relevant. This was for the Board to come and explain before this Court, since the Board has been served with notice of this petition mid has not taken any steps to represent itself before this Court, the Court has no choice but to proceed on the basis of the petition averments. The petition is allowed accordingly. Annexure-J stands quashed. The Respondents are directed to implement the order at Annexure-C by providing all terminal benefits including DCRG and pensionary benefits due to the Petitioner from the date of her retirement, after taking into account any amounts paid already by way of retirement benefits on whatever account, and to implement the same within a period of twelve weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.