Safiya Malik

The Karnataka High Court  at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has allowed a writ petition filed by a retired principal seeking release of his pension and terminal benefits, which were withheld for several years after his retirement. The Court recorded, “The State wants to play with the life of the petitioner,” in reference to the prolonged delay in settlement of dues. Observing that the petitioner, a retired teacher with 34 years of service, had been left to litigate for more than six years, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the State and the University to release all pending benefits with interest.

The Court directed compliance within four weeks from the date of the order, failing which higher interest and additional daily compensation would become payable.

Also Read: Court Must Grant Bail If Accused’s Fundamental Rights Are Violated During or After Arrest: SC

The petitioner, M.A. Dhavaleshwar, a retired Grade I Principal of Sangolli Rayanna Grade-I College, Rani Chennamma University, sought a writ of mandamus to secure release of full pension and terminal benefits. The petitioner had been appointed as a Professor on 26 July 1982 in Sangolli Rayanna College, an aided institution receiving grants from the State of Karnataka. After approximately 30 years of service, the College was declared a constituent college of Rani Chennamma University, Belagavi, and the petitioner became an employee of the University.

The petitioner retired on 31 August 2015 after completing 34 years of service. However, no terminal benefits were paid following retirement. The judgment notes that after a “plethora of correspondences between the University and the Government,” the Government directed the University to pay the terminal benefits from its funds. However, the University informed the Government that releasing pension payments could result in complications and objections during audit, leading to further delay.

The petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.145808 of 2020, which was disposed of by a coordinate bench through an order dated 10 August 2020. The Court in that order recorded, “It is rather shocking that instead of doing so, they have resorted to a blame game between respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 to contend that in the absence of document being sent by respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.5 is unable to take any action.” The Court further stated, “The petitioner having retired from service on 31.08.2015 has been virtually left high and dry for last five years without retirement benefits.”

Despite these directions, pension and terminal dues remained unsettled. The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings. During these proceedings, a Pension Payment Order was issued on 30 June 2021, sanctioning ₹15,65,676 towards pension, though other terminal dues remained unpaid.

In the contempt case, the Court recorded, “there is substantial compliance of the writ issued by the learned Single Judge as to warrant dropping of these proceedings with liberty to the complainant to work out his remainder of the grievances as to terminal benefits and such other benefits including non-payment of E.L. benefits.” The Court clarified, “It hardly needs to be clarified that these aspects are not res judicata either by the learned Single Judge’s order or by this order whose violation is complained of.”

Following partial compliance, the petitioner filed the present writ petition alleging that ₹12,72,097 in arrears of pension, ₹11,08,107 as death-cum-retirement benefits, and ₹6,71,580 towards encashment of earned leave were still unpaid.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner had been left without full pension and terminal benefits for over six years. It was contended that the authorities had made partial payments only to comply with contempt proceedings, and that substantial dues remained.

The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was only entitled to pro-rata pension on account of split service between the aided college and the University and argued that all necessary payments had already been made.

The University’s counsel submitted that the University had forwarded all necessary documents to the State and bore no further liability.

Justice Nagaprasanna recorded that the petitioner’s service began in 1982 in a government-aided college and that, after nearly 31 years, the college was declared a constituent college under Rani Chennamma University. The Court noted that the petitioner had “retired on attaining superannuation on 31.08.2015. For close to 5 years, not a rupee of pension is paid, all for the reason that the file of the petitioner was being moved from table to table for a decision as to who has to pay the pension.”

The Court recorded that the petitioner had already litigated for more than six years to secure basic retirement dues and noted, “The petitioner is now 70 years old having retired 10 years ago and has been fighting for grant of his terminal benefits for close to 6 years.”

The Court found the explanation offered by the University to be insufficient, stating, “What is projected by the University for not paying pension is, that there is likelihood of audit objection. This by no stretch of imagination be a reason to dodge a teacher for ten years.”

Justice Nagaprasanna recorded that in the ongoing correspondence between the State and the University, “who suffers is not the person who is wanting to obfuscate the issue, but the poor teacher is made running from pillar to post to get his terminal benefits.”

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had produced a memo of calculation, recording, “The petitioner has produced memo of calculation as to how it is arrived at.” The Court noted, “It is un-understandable as to why the petitioner, despite working for 34 years, has not been paid complete pension as also leave encashment and gratuity amounts.”

Also Read: "No Sufficient Grounds for Intervention": Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeals against Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Administration

The Court concluded that a mandamus should issue directing payment of the amounts sought, holding that the petitioner’s claim amounted to approximately ₹30 lakhs, stating, “The prayer is clear that he has to get close to ₹30/- lakhs as terminal benefits.”

The Court issued the following directions:

“Writ Petition is allowed.”

“Mandamus issues to the respondents – State and the University to release to the petitioner complete Death-cum-retirement benefit and encashment of privilege leave including arrears of pension as claimed, within four weeks from this day, all with an interest at 6 per cent, from the date of filing of the present petition i.e., 11-01-2022 till the date of payment.”

The Court further directed, “In the event, payments as ordered at (ii) are not paid, the petitioner becomes entitled to interest at 9% p.a., from the date of his retirement i.e., 31-08-2015 till the date of payment. In addition to that, he shall be paid ₹1,000/- for every day’s delay, till terminal benefits reach the doors of the petitioner after the expiry of four weeks.”

The Court ordered that compliance be reported in due course.

Advocate representing the parties:

For the Petitioner : Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, Advocate

For the Respondent: Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1, 3, 4, and 5 and Sri Sangram S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.2

Case Title: M.A. Dhavaleshwar v. The State of Karnataka & Others

Case Number: W.P. No. 100271 of 2022 (S-R)

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

[Read/Download order]