University of Mysore and Others vs K.S. Gopinath and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2010 passed in W.P. No. 1974/2007 is called in question in this appeal.

The respondent No. 1 was working as Asst. Librarian in the University of Mysuru. He took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.07.1991. He opted for commutation of 1/3rd of his pension. Accordingly, commutation was sanctioned and he was paid a sum of Rs. 74,613/- and the said amount was recovered @ Rs. 516/- per month out of his pension for a period of 15 years. Contending that they have recovered a sum of Rs. 93,267/- as against the commutation of Rs. 74,613/- paid to the writ petitioner, a sum of Rs. 18,654/- has been deducted in excess from his pension. Hence, he filed the writ petition No. 1974/2007 requesting the Court to issue writ of mandamus directing the University to refund the same.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the University to redo the calculation and refund the excess amount recovered from the writ petitioner. This order is called in question in the present appeal.

Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that what was sanctioned by way of commutation was Rs. 74,613/-, which has to be deducted for a period of 15 years @ Rs. 516/- per month out of the pension payable to the respondent.

As per Karnataka Civil Services Rules while recovering the commutation of pension, the University is required to recover the same with interest. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 93,267/- has been recovered according to him. The learned Single Judge without looking into the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, has allowed the writ petition. In the circumstance, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and dismiss the writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the order of learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error and this Court sitting as an intra-court cannot interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

After hearing the learned counsel for parties and perusal of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, Chapter 23, which deals with commutation of pension, Rule 377 reads that the lumpsum payable on commutation shall be calculated in accordance with the table of present values printed below. For the purpose of this rule the age in the case of impaired lives shall be assumed to be such age, not being less than the actual age, as the certifying medical authority may direct. In the event of the table of present values applicable to an applicant having been modified between the date of administrative sanction to commutation and the date on which commutation is due to become absolute payment shall be made in accordance with the modified table, but it shall be open to the applicant if the modified table is less favourable to him than that previously in force to withdraw his application by notice in writing dispatched within fourteen days of the date on which he receives notice of the modification and thereafter the table deals the manner in which the commutation amount is to be calculated and recover.

This table had been brought to the notice of the Court. We are sure that such mistake would not have been committed by the learned Single Judge. In the circumstance, we are of the view that since an error is committed in calculating the commutation, the appeal requires to be allowed. Accordingly, appeal is allowed

In the result, order of the Single Judge is set aside.