DR. R.N. RAJANNA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 382 · Decided: 07-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. R.N. RAJANNA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
C 
Karna/aka Civil Services Rules-Rules 285 and 296-Pension-Fixation 
of-For employee taking voluntary retirement while on deputation-Claim for 
fixation at the rate of 50% of the emoluments relying on Government Orders 
and for taking into account deputation allowance for fixation of quantum of 
pension-Claim denied by Department, Tribunal and High Court-On appeal, 
held: Not entitled to benefit of the Government Orders as the same were 
D issued in respect of particular cases and not for all pensioners as ·a policy 
decision-As per Rules Deputation Allowance not to be taken into account for 
computing quantum of pension. 
Appellant, who was initially appointed with State Government, took 
E voluntary retirement while on deputation with a Public Sector 
Undertaking. His pension was fixed. He approached departmental 
authorities seeking re-fixation of his pension at the rate of 50% of ~he 
emoluments drawn at the time of retirement relying on 3 Government 
Orders. He contended that for purposes of fixation of the quantum of 
pension even deputation allowance should be taken into account. The 
F representations to the Departmental authorities, application and review 
petition to the State Administrative Tribunal and writ petition before High 
Court were dismissed on the ground that the appellant was not covered 
by the Government Orders as the same were not made to govern the claims 
of all petitioners as policy decision but was made only in respect of 
particular cases. High Court also opined that as per Rule 296 of Karnataka 
G Civil Services Rules, the emoluments for determining quantum of pension 
does not include pay and allowances drawn from a source other than the 
consolidated fund of the State. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
HELD : 1. A careful perusal of the three government orders would 
382 
R.N.RAJANNA v. STATEOFKARNATAKA[RAJU, J.) 
383 
belie the claim of the appellant and the view taken by the authorities below A 
and the High Court that the appellant cannot take umbrage under those 
orders and that the Government Orders were not made to govern the 
claims of all pensioners as a policy decision but those who were concerned 
in the case filed before the Tribunal who were granted relief by the 
Tribunal in particular cases only and that too subject to the orders that B 
may be ultimately passed by this Court on the appeal said to have been 
filed against those orders, seem to be quite in accordance with law and 
does not call for interference. Though, the word 'retirement' may take 
within its fold all or any kind of retirement when the same is used in the 
context of 'superannuation' or retirement by way of superannuation, in 
service parlance the well settled meaning it already acquired and even in C 
the normal course to be assigned is that it has relevance and relates to 
discharge from a post on account of the age fixed for such retirement, 
uniformly for all or particular class or category of service holders. The 
plea to the contrary cannot be justified and all the more so in the present 
case, in the context of the specific language as well as the purpose of the D 
orders made by the Government. (385-C-F) 
2. Rule 285 read with Rule 296 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules 
does not lend support to the claim for taking into account deputation 
allowance in computing the quantum of pension of the appellant. No 
exception could be taken to this view taken by the High Court as well. 
E 
[385-G; 386-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8665 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .6.2002 of the Kamataka High 
Court in W.P.No. 26400 of 1998. 
D.P. Chaturvedi for S.N. Bhat for the Appellant. 
Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D. RAJU, J. Leave granted. The above appeal has been filed challenging 
the order of a Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court dated 17 .6.2002 
in Writ Petition No. 26400 of 1998 (S-KA T), rejecting the grievance sought 
F 
G 
to be made against the· orders of .the Kamataka Administrative Tribunal at 
Bangalore dated 19.12.1997 and 27.3.1998 in the matter of re-fixation of the 
appellant's pension, which the appellant unsuccessfully attempted to have H 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A before the Departmental Authorities and the Tribunal below. 
The appellant cla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.