Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, B. Jayadevappa, an Associate Professor of History and Principal at University Sri Mad Rambhapuri First Grade College, Shankaraghatta, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. His grievance was against the respondent-University's denial to reckon his service rendered after attaining the age of 62 years, which he claimed was the age of superannuation, asserting that the college was a constituent college of the University. The University, through its Statement of Objections dated 13.12.2019, resisted the petition, arguing that the college was not a constituent college and that the retirement age was 60 years, so service beyond 60 years could not be counted for terminal benefits. The sole legal issue was whether the college was a constituent college of the University. The Court noted that the petitioner had not produced any material to establish that the college was a constituent college. The burden of proof lay on the petitioner, and he failed to discharge it. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the service rendered beyond 60 years could not be reckoned for terminal benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Superannuation Age - Constituent College Status - Reckoning of Service - The petitioner, an Associate Professor and Principal, sought reckoning of service rendered beyond 60 years up to 62 years, claiming the college was a constituent college of the University. The University contended the college was not a constituent college and the retirement age was 60 years. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the college was a constituent college, and thus the service beyond 60 years could not be counted for terminal benefits. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the college in which the petitioner served until 62 years is a constituent college of the respondent-University, entitling him to have his service beyond 60 years counted for terminal benefits.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner failed to prove that the college is a constituent college of the respondent-University. Consequently, the service rendered beyond 60 years cannot be reckoned for terminal benefits.
Law Points
- Constituent college
- Superannuation age
- Service reckoning
- Terminal benefits
- Burden of proof
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (12) 45
Writ Petition No. 34969 of 2016 (S-RES)
Sri. K. Subba Rao (Senior Counsel) for Sri. K.R. Bhavani Shankar (Advocate) for Petitioner; Sri. M.V. Ramesh Jois (AGA) for R1; Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay (Advocate) for R2
State of Karnataka and Kuvempu University
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging denial of reckoning of service beyond 60 years for terminal benefits.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned Official Memorandum dated 15.06.2016 issued by respondent-University and direction to reckon service rendered up to 62 years.
Filing Reason
Denial by respondent-University to count service rendered after attaining age of 62 years for terminal benefits.
Issues
Whether the college in which the petitioner served is a constituent college of the respondent-University.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the college is a constituent college of the University and thus the age of superannuation is 62 years, and service up to that age should be counted.
Respondent-University contended that the college is not a constituent college, the retirement age is 60 years, and service beyond 60 years cannot be counted for terminal benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish that the college is a constituent college of the University. In the absence of any material to prove such status, the claim for reckoning service beyond the retirement age of 60 years fails.
Judgment Excerpts
The short grievance of the petitioner is against the denial of the respondent-University to reckon the service rendered by him till after attaining the age of 62 years which according to him is the age of superannuation, assertedly the respondent-College being a constituent college of the said University.
The question that arises for consideration in this case is: 'Whether the subject College in which the petitioner has put in service upto 62 years is a constituent college of the respondent-University?'
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The respondent-University entered appearance and filed a Statement of Objections dated 13.12.2019. The petition was heard on 10.12.2019 and dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
