1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

W.A. NO.1106 OF 2013 (S-R)

IN

W.P.No.11343 OF 2011 (S-R)

BETWEEN:

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

MANAGEMENT

BANNERGHATTA ROAD

BANGALORE-560076

PROF. PANKAJCHANDA

BY ITS DIRECTOR.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SYED KASHIF, ADV., FOR

SRI. S.R. KAMALCHARAN, ADV.,)

AND:

PROF. S. SUNDARAJAN

S/O LATE A. SELVAGANAPATHY

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

R/AT. FLAT NO.303, B-1 BLOCK

GIRI APARTMENTS

NO.54/1, J.P. NAGAR II PHASE

BANGALORE-560078.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADV., FOR R1)

- - -

2

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.11343/2011 (S-R) DATED 15.11.2012.

THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY,

ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

In this intra Court appeal preferred under Section 4 of

the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellant has

assailed the validity of the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by

the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred

by the respondent has been allowed with a direction to the

appellant herein to consider and grant the proportionate

pension to the respondent in consonance to Rule 49(2)(b) of

the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1922 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Rules' for short).

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are

that the appellant is a society registered under the provisions

of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 which is

controlled by the Human Resource Development, Ministry of

Government of India and is a State within the meaning of

Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent joined

3

the services of the appellant on 01.05.1991 at the age of 44

years as Associate Professor. The respondent, by a

communication, was promoted as a Professor with effect

from 17.05.1994. It is not in dispute that the respondent by

a

communication

dated

04.05.2009

sought

voluntary

retirement, after rendering 18 years and 29 days of service.

He was permitted to retire voluntarily from 30.05.2009. The

respondent thereafter made a request to the appellant for

grant of pension. However, the aforesaid prayer was not

exceeded to by the appellant. Thereupon, the respondent

filed petition in which a writ of mandamus was sought

directing the appellant herein to accord proportionate

pension in terms of Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules for rendering

18 years of service.

3. The appellant herein filed the statement of

objections in which inter alia it was averred that Rule 49 of

the Rules apply to the case of superannuation as well as

voluntary retirement. It was further pleaded that an

employee who completes 10 years of services is entitled to

pension if he reaches the age of superannuation while in

4

service. It was also averred that Rule 48(a) and Rule 49 are

not applicable to the case of the respondent and merely

because the respondent had completed more than 10 years

of service, the same would not entitle him for proportionate

pension. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated

15.11.2012, by placing reliance on Rule 49(2)(b) of the

Rules, inter alia, held that the aforesaid provision relates to

the employee who has completed 10 years of qualifying

service but has not completed 20 years of qualifying service.

Therefore, such person is eligible for proportionate benefit.

Accordingly, the respondent was held entitled to the benefit

of Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules and the appellant herein was

directed to grant the benefit of proportionate pension in

consonance to Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules. In the aforesaid

factual background, this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while inviting the

attention of this Court