STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SRI K. VASUDEVA MAYYA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 254 · Decided: 05-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
SRI K. VASUDEVA MAYYAAND ANR. 
OCTOBER 5, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
c 
Service Law : 
Kamataka Civil Services Rules 1957: 
Rule' 313(b)-After superannuation Officers re-employed on contract 
basis-During their re-employment State Govt. enhancing age of superannua-
tion from 55 to 58 years-Treated as continued in service and superannuated 
on reaching the age of 5&-Before their superannuation Revised Pay Rules 
coming into force-Applicability of the Revised Rules with regard to pay and 
D pension to such officers-Period of re-employment after the age of 55 and 
prior to superannuation al the age of 58 since treated as continuous service 
R.313(b) not applicable as held by State Administrative tribunal-Held no 
inteiference called for. 
Respondent 1 belonged to Kamataka Administrative Service, Group 
E A(Jr. Scale). Respondent 2 was a member of the Kamataka Secretariat 
Service. Both of them retired on attaining the superannuation age of 55 
years and were re-employed on contract basis subject to the conditions· of 
service In rule 313(b) or Kamataka Civil Services Rules, 1957. 
F 
G 
H 
While the Respondents were no their re.i!mployment, the State Govt. 
by. its order dated 24.8.1984 enhanced the superannuation age of its 
employees from 55 years to 58 years, with retrospective elfect from 2.8.1984. 
Consequently Respondents 1 and 2 were treated to be In regular service 
and retired when they attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, on 
31.7.1987 and 31.3.1987 respectively. 
The Kamataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987 came into 
force from 1.7.1986. Though the respondent retired In 1987, after the 
coming Into force of the Revised Pay Rules 1987, they were denied the 
benefit of the revised pay and pension. 
The Respondents filed a joint application before the Karnataka 
254 
.J 
STATE v.K.V.MAYYA 
255 
Administrative Tribun@I claiming revised pay and pension, and for treat· A 
ing as continuous service, the service rendered between 55 years of age and 
58 years of age. The Tribunal allowed the benefit of Revised Pay Rules, but 
disallowed the claim for counting their service between earlier superan· 
nuation and subsequent superannuation. Respondents as also the State 
filed Review Applications against the said order. The Tribunal allowed the 
Review Application of the Respondents and dismissed that of the State. 
B 
In the present appeals, the State contended that when the Resppn· 
dents were re-employed, it was snbject to Rnle 313(b) of the Karnataka 
Civil Service Rules; that the Government Order dated 17.9.1984 also 
mentioned that there would not be any change in the nature or character C 
or conditions of service of re-employment; therefore the Respondents 
should be regarded as Government servants not entitled to combine their 
pensionable service rendered prior to attaining 55 and subsequently upto. 
58 years, for claiming pensionary benefits admissible under the Karnataka 
Civil Services Rules. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. An examination of the orders of the Government relating 
to increase in the snperannnatiou age of Government servants from 55 
years to 58 years for their retirement from State Civil Service and their E 
applicability to such of the Government Servants who had retired on 
attaining the superannuation age of 55 years but were in re-employment 
on contract basis and further orders made by the Government in relation 
to applicability of those Government orders to the respondents and their 
orders on retirement, specifically made on their completion of superan· 
nuation age of 58 years, leaves no scope for interference with the order F 
under appeal made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. [261-C to E 
2. It is, the order dated 17.9.1984 of the State Government, which 
made the respondents retire from Government service after they attained 
the superannuation age of 58 years, by putting an end to their earlier G 
retirements done at their superannuation age of 55 years, and gave them · 
the benefit of continuity in their service npto the age of 58 years, instead 
of their service on re-employment. If that be so, it is understandable, bow 
their pay and other service benefits to be given to them, could be fixed on 
the basis that they had retired at the age of 55 years and re-employed 
thereafter, resorting to the provisions in Rule 313(b) of the Karnataka H 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4S.C.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.