THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SMT. SARASWATHI B

Judgment

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE), ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

3. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT, GENERAL (A AND E), POST BOX NO.5329 PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) AND: 1 . SMT. SARASWATHI B, W/O LATE P.K.BHASKAR BELLIPADI, ..PETITIONERS 2 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT "BELLIPADY NILAYA" KUDUPUNDKA MADNURU VILLAGE, KAVU POST, PUTTUR TALUK - 574 223. SMT.P.GOWRI, W/O LATE MUDDU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT "ARIYADKA HOUSE", KODICHAR POST, PUTTUR TALUK - 574 223. SMT.LEELAVATHI, W/O LATE KITTANNA RAI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R.AT "HOSAGADDE HOUSE", KOLTHIGE VILLAGE, PERLAMPANDY, PUTTUR TALUK - 574 212. SMT. SEETHAMMA, W/O LATE M.ANANDA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT "MADANNA HOUSE", ENEKALLU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239. SMT. SUNDARI A, W/O LATE SADANANDA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A "KALLAJE HOUSE", AITURU VILLAGE, SUNKADAKATTE POST, PUTTUR TALUK - 574 230. SMT. DEVAKI K, W/O LATE SADASHIVA GOWDA K, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT "NIDHUBE HOUSE", ALVERNADU VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK,

2. 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 3 7 . 8 .

9. DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239. SMT. LALITHA, W/O LATE SANJEEVA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT "HOSAMANE KODAMBU HOUSE", PERIAMPADY POST, KOLTHIGE VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK - 574 212. SMT. MOHANANGI M, W/O LATE M.NARAYAN GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT "MARKAJE HOUSE", KULKUNDA, SUBRAMANYA POST, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239. SMT. JANAKI M, W/O LATE N.GUNDAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT "KANDRAPPADY HOUSE", DEVACHALLA VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.

10. SMT.AMUDHA, W/O LATE S.D.AMRITHALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SONANGERI POST, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239. 11 . SMT.KAMALA EXPIRED ON 07.11.2017 REP BY HER LEGAL HEIRS 11(A) SRI KARUNAKARA, S/O LATE KUKKAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 11(B) SRI SHIVAPRASAD, S/O LATE KUKKAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 4 BOTH ABOVE R/AT 'MUJURU HOUSE', AITHURU VILLAGE, SUNKADAKATTE POST, PUTTUR TALUK - 574 230.

12. SMT. A.M.SAVITHRI, W/O LATE B.K.RATHNAKARA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT 'SAMRUDHI NILAYA', GOONUDKA POST, DOODADKA VIA SAMPAJE, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.

14. SMT.K.INDIRA, W/O LATE.K.GUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT 'ERNE HOUSE', GOONADKA POST, VIA SAMPAJE, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239. SMT. SAROJINI, W/O LATE K.MADHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT 'ALEKKADI HOUSE', MURULYA POST, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.

15. SMT. DEVAKI, W/O LATE K.RAMANNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NAGAPATNA, ALETTY POST, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.

16. SMT.D.CHANDRAVATHI, W/O LATE HARISCHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT 'DERAJE HOUSE', ARANTHODU POST,

21. 5 SULLIA TALUK - 574 239. SMT.H.LAXMI, W/O LATE SHESHAPPA C.H., AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT 'HALTHADKA HOUSE', AMARMUDHNOORU VILLAGE, KUKKUJADKA POST, SULLIA TALUK - 574 212. SMT. YAMUNA K, W/O LATE SOORAYYA J, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT 'KANDADKA HOUSE', DUGGLADKA POST, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239. SMT.P.KAMAKSHI, W/O LATE R.SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A 'KANDADKA HOUSE', DUGGLADKA POST, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239. SMT.JAYALAKSHMI T, W/O LATE M.THANGAVELLU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT 'DARKASTH CRC', BELLARE POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239. SMT.M.POORNAM, W/O LATE S.MARATHA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT 'KALLONI HOUSE', BELLARE POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.

22. SMT.SUNDHARI SUNITHA, 6 W/O LATE GOPAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, C/O SADGUNA PALEMAR, R/AT DOOR NO.361/1, KADEKAR ROAD, JAPPINA MOGARU, MANGALURU - 575 009.

26. SMT. SHESHAMMA, W/O LATE BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 'PADE HOUSE', KODIMBALA VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK - 575 212. SMT. BABY T.P, W/O LATE A.P.RAMDASAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A MARAKAPU KADAPPURAM, THAIKADAPPURAM, NILESHWAR KASARGOD, KERALA - 671 314. SMT.LEELA W/O LATE C.H. POOVAYYA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/A 'BANJIKODI HOUSE', ALVARNAD POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239. SMT.S GIRIJA, W/O LATE. C.H. POOVAYYA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/A 'BANJOKPDI HOUSE', ALVARNAD POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

27. SMT. M DEVAKKI, W/O LATE. THYAMPANNA GOWDA, 7 AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A. 'KODANKERI HOUSE', AITHOOR VILLAGE, SUNKADHAKATTE POST, PUTTUR DISTRICT - 574 230. SMT K. MOHIN, W/O LATE. RAGHAV GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A KFDC EMPLOYEE QUARTERS, ALVARNADU POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.

SMT.B.GULABI, W/O LATE RAMA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT 'BELERI HOUSE', KINNIGARU POST, BELLURU VILLAGE, KASARGUDU TALUK AND DISTRICT, KERALA - 671 543. SMT.MUTHULAKSHMI, W/O LATE VEERASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT 'DHARKASTHU HOUSE', BELLARE POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK - 574 212. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, VANAVIKASA, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

31. A.NO.6206 TO 6270/2017 BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, ...RESPONDENTS 8 REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 7TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE), OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

3. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT, GENERAL (A AND E), POST BOX NO.5329 PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) AND:

1. SRI T.ABIDULLA SAHEB, S/O LATE T.KASIM SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT ADI UDUPI MAJALU, KODAVOOR POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 106.

2. SRI.C.H.VASAPPA GOWDA, S/O LATE HONNAPPA GOWDA C, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A ALVATHOKLU VILLAGE, PANJA POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 232. ...PETITIONERS 9

3. SRI.K.BHASKARA, S/O LATE KARATHA KUTTY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT KUNHAMMA NIVAS, NELLIKUNJE, NEAR SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE, KASARGOD KERALA - 671 121.

4. SRI P.SUNDARA GOWDA, S/O LINGAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NEDUBE HOUSE, POOJARI MANE, ALVERNAD POST, SULLIA TALUK - 575 239.

5. SRI M.S.DUGGAPPA, S/O SHIVAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NATIKERI HOUSE, ALVERNAD POST, SULLIA TALUK - 575 239.

6. SRI H.KUSHALAPPA GOWDA, S/O CHENNAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT HULIMANE HOUSE, JALSOOR VILLAGE, SONANGERI POST, SULLIA TALUK - 575 239.

7. SRI K.VENKAPPA GOWDA, S/O KUSAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT KUTHYALA HOUSE (NEKRAJE) SONANGIRI POST, JALSOOR VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-575 239. LR'S BROUGHT ON RECORD VIDE ORDER DTD.04.03.2021 7(A) K.V.MAHESH 10 S/O K VENKAPPA GOWDA . 7(B) K.V.DHANYA D/O K VENKAPPA GOWDA. 7(C) K.V.TEJAS S/O K VENKAPPA GOWDA. R/AT KUTHYALA HOUSE, SONANGIIR POST, JALSOOR VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK.

8. SRI M.R.JATHAPPA GOWDA, S/O RAMANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT KANAJALU MANE, KANAMAJALU POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK - 575 239.

9. SRI C.MADHAVA BHAT S/O ANANTHA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MALLADKA, ANANTH SADANS, ARANTHODU POST, SULLIA, SULLIA TALUK - 575 239.

10. SRI K.K.DEVAIAH, S/O K.M.KUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NELLI KUMARI, SAMPAJE POST, KALLAGONDI, MADIKERI - 571 201.

11. SRI K.THANIYA, S/O PUTHRA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KADEPALA HOUSE, SAMPAJE POST, SULLIA-575 239. VIDE ORDER DATED 04.03.2021 BY LR'S 11 11(A) SMT.RUKMINI.C.H. W/O K.THANIYA R/AT KADEPALA HOUSE, SAMPAGE POST, SULLIA.

12. SRI GURUAPPA, S/O KEPU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT DODADKA HOUSE, GOONADKA POST, SULLIA - 575 239.

13. SRI S.NAGARAJ, S/O SUPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KADEPALA HOUSE, SAMPAJE POST, SULLIA - 575 239.

14. SRI C.H.ODIAPPA GOWDA, S/O HONNAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT CHAKOTE HOUSE, IVRNADU POST, SULLIA - 575 239.

15. SRI P.SHEENAPPA GOWDA, S/O BELIYAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT MALETHODI HOUSE, PERIAMPADI POST, PUTTUR TALUK - 575 212.

16. SRI K.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O DURGOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT BADEYADKA HOUSE, NEAR AMCHINADKA, KAVU POST, PUTTUR TALUK - 575 212.

17. SRI B.PAKEERA, S/O P.KECHUPATELI, 12 AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SAVITHRI NIVASA, KANAKA MAJULU POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK - 575 239.

18. SRI M.BALAKRISHNA, S/O PAKEERA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT MAVAJI HOUSE, AJJAVARA VILLAGE AND POST, AJJAVARA - 574 239.

19. SRI K.M.BABU RAJENDRA, S/O MAILAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT KORAMBADKA, KOLTHIGE VILLAGE, PERIAMPADY POST, PUTTUR - 575 212.

20. SRI P.THIMMAPPA NAIK, S/O PARAMESHWARA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT BANDIKANA HOUSE, MUNDOOR VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR - 575 212.

21. SRI K.BABU GOWDA, S/O RAMANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT PRASADA NILAYA, DEVARAKANNA, IVARNAD, SULLI TALUK - 574 239. LR'S VIDE ORDER DATED 4.3.2021 21(A) K.PREMA, W/O K.BABU GOWDA R/AT PRASADA NILAYA, DEVARAKANNA, IVARNAD, 13 SULLIA.

22. SRI G.KARIYAPPA POOJARI, S/O BIRMANNA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KUNTIKANA HOUSE, PERIAMPADY POST, KOLTHIGE VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK - 575 212.

23. SRI P.JANARDHANA GOWDA, S/O THIMMAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT PURA VILLAGE, MARKANJA POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

24. SRI K.NARAYANA POOJARI, S/O JATHAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KOYLA MANE, KUMBRA POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 212.

25. SRI K.SEETHARAMA GOWDA, S/O CHANDHAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT PALLADKA MANE, HEREBANDARI POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 212.

26. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KANATHILA MANE, NEAR JYOTHI CIRCLE, SULLIA KASABA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239. VIDE ORDER DATED 4.3.2021 BY LR'S 14 26(A) SMT. VINODA, W/O NAVEEN KUMAR, R/O KANATHILA MANE, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

27. SRI M.DEVAYYA GOWDA, S/O SUBRAYA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT MORANGALLU MANE, ALATTY POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

28. SRI H.SEETHARAMA, S/O HOOVAYYA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NERPU HOUSE, BALPA POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK , DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

29. SRI THEERTHARAMA ACHARI, S/O SHIVAPPA ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KUKKANDOOR MANE, SONANGERI POST, JALSOOR VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

30. SRI U.M.NARAYANA GOWDA, S/O LATE U.K.MAILAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT ULUVARAU MALLADKA HOUSE, ARANTHODU POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

31. SRI V.SAVERI MUTHU, S/O VEDHAMUTHU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 15 R/AT NAGAPATTANA C.R.C. ALLETY POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

32. SRI CYRIL GONSELVES, S/O JOSEPH GONSELVES, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT 2-244, HOSEGUDDE HOUSE, OLD GATE, SULLIA KASABA SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

33. SRI H.JANARDHANA NAIK, S/O AITHAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT HONNEDI HOUSE, ALETTY POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK - 575 239.

34. SRI K.SUNDARA RAI, S/O KORAGAPPA RAI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SHANTHI NAGARA HOUSE, PAICHAR POST, SULLIA - 574 239.

35. SRI P.PADMAYYA DAS, S/O CHANDAPPA DAS, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT KALLONI HOUSE, BELLARE POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA - 574 212.

36. SRI P.KRISHNA, S/O P.RAMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT KUNJADKA HOUSE, PUNDOOR NEKRAJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNAA - 574 313. 16

37. SRI P.PALANIMUTHU, S/O PALAMUTHU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT PRAVEEN NILAYA, KOLTIGE VILLAGE, PERLAMPADY POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 212.

38. SRI M.HONNAPPA GOWDA, S/O LAKSHMANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT MAVINA KATTE HOUSE, DHEVACHALLA VILLAGE, NELLUR KOINAGAJE POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

39. SRI M.DEVAPPA GOWDA, S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT MEENACHE HOUSE, DHEVACHALLE VILLAGE, KANDHREPADY POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

40. SRI P.KORAGA, S/O BHATYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT MAPALADKA HOUSE, JALSOOR VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239.

41. SRI YELYANNA RAI, S/O MUTHAPPA RAI, R/AT KINYALA HOUSE, YEDAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK - 575 239. 17

42. SRI E.PUTTA NAIK, S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT KAWDICHAR HOUSE, ARIYADKKA VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK - 575 212.

43. SRI M.ANANDA GOWDA, S/O DHUGAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT MUNDODI HOUSE, DHEVACHALLE VILLAGE, KANDRAPADI POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 239. VIDE ORDER DATED 4.3.2021 LR'S 43(A) SMT.PARVATI, W/O M.ANANDA GOWDA, R/AT MUNDODI HOUSE, DHEVACHALLE VILLAGE, KANDRAPADI POST, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 239.

44. SRI B.PRABHAKARA, S/O GANAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT 3-359 JANATHA COLONY, BILLINELE NETTANA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 230.

45. SRI N.LINGAPPA GOWDA, S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NIDUBE HOUSE, AIVARNADU VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK - 575 239.

46. SRI K.MOHANDAS, S/O K.KRISHNAYYA, 18 AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT DEEPAK NIVAS, BELTHANGADY - 574 214.

47. SRI K.RAGHU, S/O SOMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT SREE KRISHNA COMPOUND, SHETTY GEDDE, BHASKAR NAGAR, BODIODK ROAD, KUMBLE, KASARGOD - 671 321.

48. SRI B.RAMANNA GOWDA, S/O VENKATA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT BILLINELE BAILU HOUSE, NETTANA POST, SULLIA - 575 239.

49. SRI P.SHESHAPPA GOWDA, S/O NAGAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT PANJODI HOUSE, MARADALA POST, AITHUR VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK, SULLIA - 575 212

50. SRI A.SHIVRAMA GOWDA, S/O SHANKARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MOGAPE (NETAR HOUSE), KOLTHIGE VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK - 575 212.

51. SRI G.RAMA, S/O ANGARA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT JATTIPALLA HOUSE, SULLIA POST AND TALUK, SULLIA - 575 239.

52. SRI P.THIMMAPPA GOWDA, 19 S/O KUNJANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT BANJIGODI HOUSE, AIVARNADA VILLAGE AND POST, AIVARANADU - 574 239.

53. SRI D.CHANDAPPA POOJARY, S/O CHANNAIAH POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT KALENJA HOUSE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 219.

54. SRI SUNDARA MOGRAL, S/O MANKU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT "SUSHMA" NO.9-75/3 (42), 4TH LANE DEN MACK LAYOUT, KANKANADI VILLAGE, BAJAL POST, YEKKUR, MANGALURU - 577 001.

55. SRI P.ESUBU, S/O ABDULARAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT PARUPUNJA HOUSE, PUTTUR TALUK - 574 210.

56. SRI K.SUNDARA, S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KODANCHADKA HOUSE, DUGGALADKA POST, SULLIA TALUK, SULLIA - 575 239.

57. SRI M.LAXMANA, S/O KARIA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT KALBAVI CROSS ROAD, KODIKAL, MANGALURU, MANGALURU - 575 006. 20

58. SRI PADMAIAH POOJARY, S/O BABU POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT BAKITAMAR HOUSE, MADAVU POST, PUTTUR TALUK, PUTTUR - 574 210. VIDE ORDER DATED 4.3.2021 LR'S 58(A) SMT. P.BABY, W/O PADMAIAH POOJARY, R/AT BAKITAMAR HOUSE, MADAVU POST, PUTTUR TALUK, PUTTUR.

59. SRI B.A VASANDAN, S/O M.KAMALAKSHAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT AVIKKAL HOUSE, KOLAVAYAL POST, KANHANGAD, KASARGODU DISTRICT KERALA - 671 351.

60. SRI B.VENKAPPA GOWDA, S/O. ODIAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT BAJANTHADKA HOUSE, AIVARNAD POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, SULLIA - 575 239.

61. SRI N.RAMIAYYA SHETTY, S/O APPAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NEAR NARIMUGERE VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK, PUTTUR - 574 212. 21

62. SRI K KRISHNA, S/O K KUNHANNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT "SRI KUDLU NIVASA", KODINEERU HOUSE, MUNDOORU VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK, PUTTUR-574 212. V/O DATED 04.03.2021 BY LR'S 62(A) HARINAKSHI, W/O K KRISHNA.

63. SRI K SHIVARAYA, S/O RAMAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT "CHIDGAL HOUSE", BILINELE VILLAGE, NETTANA POST, PUTTUR TALUK- 574 212.

64. SRI P ACHUTHA GOWDA, S/O VENKAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT "POOMBADI HOUSE", BILINELE VILLAGE, KAIKAMBA POST, PUTTUR TALUK-574 212.

65. SRI S KRISNAPPA POOJARI, S/O KORAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KOMBAR POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK-574 212.

66. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 1ST FLOOR, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. (BY SRI M.S BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SATHISH.K, …RESPONDENTS 22 ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 65; SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-66) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED ON IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.07.2019 IN APPLICATION NOS.6704-6733/2017 C.W. APPLICATION NOS.6206-6270/2017 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNX-A. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-CORPORATION TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES PROVISIONS AND BYE-LAWS OF THE CORPORATION AND THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NO WAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND ALSO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 64 TO APPROACH ITS EMPLOYER FOR ANY RELIEFS AND NOT TO HARASS THE PETITIONER DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROPER/UNLAWFUL BENEFITS AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.01.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, C.M.JOSHI J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru, ('KSAT' for short), in Application Nos.6704 to 6733 of 2017 C.W. Application Nos.6206 to 6270 of 2017 on 26-07-2019, the State has filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent- The Managing Director, Karnataka 23 Forest Development Corporation to follow the guidelines, provisions of bye- laws of the Corporation and that the Department is no way responsible for the pensionary benefits of the employees and also to direct the R2 to 64 to approach its employer for any of the reliefs.

2. The applicants in Application Nos.6704 to 6733 of 2017 are the wives of the deceased Plantation Malies and the applicants in Application Nos. 6206 to 6270 of 2017 are the Plantation Malies who have superannuated at the age of 60 years and as such, they are referred to as the applicants hereinafter. Further, the parties would be referred to as per their nomenclature before the KSAT for the sake of convenience.

3. The KSAT, by the impugned order had directed to treat the husbands of applicants in Application Nos. 6704- 6733/2017 and applicants in Application Nos.6206-6270/2017 as Government Servants and consequently, extend all the pensionary benefits as well as family pension to the respective 24 applicants from the date of regularization of their respective husbands/applicants in the 1st respondent-Department till the date of retirement in 3rd respondent-Corporation, accordance with law and settle all pensionary benefits including pension with admissible interest from the date of accrual till date of payment within three months from the date of receipt of the said order.

4. The factual matrix that are germane for the purpose of this writ petition are as below: The applicants' husbands in Application Nos.6704- 6733/2017 and the applicants in Application Nos.6206- 6270/2017 were appointed as 'Plantation Malis' in the Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment (hereinafter referred as 'the Department' for short) and their services were transferred to Karnataka Forest Development Corporation i.e., respondent No.32 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent-Corporation' for short). It was contended that the respondent-Corporation re-designated the posts of 'Plantation 25 Mali' as 'Task Supervisor'. The applicants' husbands and the applicants in the applications retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and some of them even passed away. Initially, they were appointed in the Rubber Plantation Division and later, their services were lent to the respondent- Corporation, but however, their services were not absorbed in the cadre of the respondent-Corporation. At the time of retirement, their services were not counted while disbursing their pension. Despite several representation made to the Department, seeking for settling their pension, counting their service from the date of appointment till their retirement, no action was taken in this regard, even though, the respondent- Corporation had forwarded the representation recommending request of the Plantation Malis favourable consideration. On the contrary, the Department had sought for clarification as to how Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) was collected without absorbing them in the respondent- Corporation. Such query by the Department was explained by the respondent-Corporation stating that the husbands of the 26 applicants and the applicants were not absorbed in the Corporation as they were on deputation and they were discharging their duties on deputation in the cadre of 'Task Supervisor' from that of 'Plantation Mali'. The Department, instead of extending the pensionary benefits to the husband of the applicants and applicants, sought certain clarification from the respondent-Corporation and even after all the clarifications were met, the request was turned down by the Department. Therefore, the applicants approached the KSAT contending that they are entitled for pensionary benefits and family pension in accordance with Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs for short), particularly, Rule 2(c)(i) as they were Government Servants and are governed by the said Rules. It was contended that non payment of the pension and family pension is violative of Rule 35 of KCSRs and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. On issuance of notice, the respondent-Department as 27 well as respondent-Corporation appeared before the KSAT. However, they did not file any objection statement.

6. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for both the parties, and the learned Government Pleader who has consented for disposal of these cases, as they come within the purview of the covered judgments, proceeded to pass the impugned order. The operative portion of the order reads as below: "i) Applications are allowed. ii) The respondents are directed to treat the applicants' husband in A.Nos. 6704 to 6733/2017 and applicants in A.Nos. 6206 to 6270/2017 are Government Servants and consequently, extend all pensionary benefits as well as family pension to the respective applicants form the date of regularization of their respective husbands/applicants in the 1st respondent department till the date of retirement in 3rd respondent - Corporation, in accordance with law and settle all pensionary benefits including family pension with admissible interest from the date of accrual till date of payment. 28 iv) The above exercise shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or as early as possible considering the age of all the applicants."

7. Now the State has come up with this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned order of the KSAT contending that the KSAT did not have any jurisdiction to try the case as the applicants before it could not have been considered as Government Servants. It is further contended that the applicants before the KSAT had not produced any iota of evidence to establish that they were the wives of alleged Government servants and Government servants and their identity. It is contended that the marital status could only be decided by the Civil Courts.

8. It is also contended that there was an inordinate delay in approaching KSAT and the workmen or employees had not at all approached the Tribunal in the first instance. Moreover, they could not have been granted the status of Government Servants as their employment was not as per Rule 285 and 29 235 of KCSRs. It is contended that at no point of time, the Government of Karnataka had declared that they were Government Servants and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable under law.

9. It is further contended that the husbands of the applicants and applicants before the KSAT were working with respondent-Corporation, which is a Company established under the Companies Act and therefore, at no stretch of imagination, the KSAT could have directed the writ petitioners to treat the applicants as the Government Servants. It is further contended that the Department under the Government is run on the provisions of Rules, Regulations etc. and the respondent- Corporation i.e. KFDC is bound by different Bye- laws, Articles of Association of the Company and such other orders made by Board of Directors etc. Therefore, the impugned order results in wrong interpretation of law.

10. It is further contended that the applicants were given pay scales prevailing in the respondent- Corporation, they 30 have enjoyed the benefits of time bound advancement promotions and automatic grant of promotion on 10th and 15th years of service. The promotion was also in the cadre of plantation Superintendent as per the norms of Corporation. Therefore, in all respects the applicants were the employees of the respondent-Corporation and if they are treated as the Government Servants as per the impugned order, it leads to burden on the state exchequer. It is contended that the respondent- Corporation could not have promoted the husbands of the applicants and the applicants if at all they were on deputation and only have paid the monthly deputation allowance. It is also contended respondent-Corporation has paid bonus to the husbands of the applicants and the applicants as prescribed under the payment of Bonus Act, 1965, which could only be done to the employees of the companies. Therefore, contending that the husbands of the applicants and the applicants were not the Government Servants, the State has contended that the impugned order be quashed. 31

11. By order dated 03-11-2020, the operation of the impugned order passed by the KSAT was stayed by this Court. The proceedings show that learned counsel Sri. M.S. Bhagwat has taken notice for all the respondents and during the pendency of the writ petition, R7,11,21,26,43,58 and 62 were reported to be dead and their legal heirs were brought on record as per the order dated 04-03-2021.

12. We have heard, learned AGA appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.S Bhagwat, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents who are applicants before the Tribunal and also Sri M.V. Charati, learned counsel for respondent No.66. Submissions by learned AGA:

13. Learned AGA appearing for the State, who are the writ petitioners herein, submits respondent- Corporation is registered under the Companies Act, and it was handed over all the assets of the Government as it was opined 32 by the Government that the management of the Rubber Plantation would be better managed if it is handed over to independent Corporation and as such, by order dated 27-9-1980 all the assets of Rubber plantation owned by the Government was transferred to the respondent-Corporation. Consequential to the said order, and in order to protect the interest of the labourers/workmen working at that time, by an official memorandum No.100/80-81 dated 05-01-1981 all the staff who were working in Work Charge Establishment in the Rubber Plantation were transferred to the respondent- Corporation. The the Government No.FFD/26/FRP/ 78 dated 27-9-1980 of the Chief Conservator of Forests is relied in this regard. He further submit that the Department of the Government is regulated under Article 309 of Constitution and the Statute of the Karnataka Forest Act,

1963. The employees of the Department are appointed for the development and conservation of the forests under the notified procedure of the Government and therefore, the husbands of the applicants and the applicants are the 33 employees of the respondent-Corporation which is established under the Companies Act.

14. It is submitted that husbands of the applicants and the applicants were engaged by the petitioners-Department for a particular project and they were engaged under Work Charged Establishment ('WCE' for short). He tried to explain the meaning of 'Work Charged Establishment' with reference to Para 12 of the Karnataka Forest Accounts Code and submitted that WCE is in respect of actual execution of the works, whose pay and allowances are debited directly to the concerned works. He submits that when employees are borne on permanent or temporary establishments or employed on the works of this nature, their pay should be for the time being charged directly to the works and their pay etc., on regular establishment should however be charged under the head Establishment under the concerned major head. It is further contended that WCE is also explained in Article 239 of the Karnataka Financial Code, where the death- cum- 34 retirement gratuity procedure is defined. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents/applicants were not paid out of consolidated fund of the State Government as they were not working in the affairs of the State Government. He submits respondents/applicants were engaged by Department for maintenance of the plantation on the basis of WCE and wages were paid in the respective line estimates of the works and debited against the respective estimates.

15. The next prong of the arguments by learned AGA for petitioners is that, the respondents/applicants being well aware of these facts have approached KSAT by suppressing material and factual aspects. It is submitted that the Government in its order No.FFD 26 FRP 78 dated 27-9-1980 stated that in order to see that proper attention is paid to the management of rubber plantation involving diverse activities of cultural operations, processing, marketing and handling labour, it was considered that comparatively Junior Officer may be given the charge by surrendering the post of the Joint 35 Managing Director in the Grade of CCF, to ensure efficient and business like management of the rubber plantations as a commercial enterprise. Accordingly, 4443.32 hectares of the rubber plantations were transferred to Karnataka Forest Plantation Corporation and it will also take over the staff of the rubber circle. He also submitted that a total amount of Rs.633.13 lakhs spent towards providing for capital works was be treated as equity of the state and accordingly, the Corporation came into the management of the rubber plantation including the staff i.e. the respondents/applicants. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents/applicants are the employees of KFDC.

16. It is further submitted that the KFDC on receipt of the plantation along with the service of husbands of the applicants and applicants had appointed them as 'Plantation Malies' which is one of the feeder cadre in the respondent- Company in the appropriate pay scale. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent-Corporation i.e. KFDC is the 36 appointing authority for respondents/applicants and that the respondents/applicants have accepted the appointment with pay scale and availed all the service and financial benefits. To augment this contention, it is submitted by learned AGA that, the respondents/applicants had also availed the benefit of CPF, gratuity etc., at the costs of KFDC Limited and the service registers show the same. He also submits that the respondent-Corporation i.e. KFDC had also considered the respondents/applicants as their own employees and had granted ten years time bound advancement, increment and automatic grant of special promotion to the senior scale of pay. It is submitted that only the appointing authorities are competent to sanction the selection time scale of pay and grant of time bound advancement and special promotion.

17. It is further submitted that the leave salary contribution at 11% of the pay and the pension contribution at 1/8th of pay drawn under the Government from time to time has not been credited to the Government account as per Rule 37 427 of KCSRs in case of deputation of the government servants to outside institutions. On the other hand, CPF was adopted which clearly indicates respondent- Corporation had treated the respondents/applicants as their employees. It is contended that even the respondents/ applicants had accepted all such benefits as the employees of KFDC and they have not claimed at any point of time that they are Government Servants. It is submitted that due to communication gap between the writ petitioners herein and the respondent-Corporation, the statement of objections could not be filed before the KSAT. Therefore, urging that the husbands of the applicants and the applicants are not the Government Servants, he has sought to quash the impugned order of the KSAT. Submissions by respondents/applicants;

18. Sri M S Bhagwat, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/ applicants submitted that the concept of WCE is only for the better management of the sovereign functions of 38 the State. He contends that when the State has taken the view that the Rubber Plantations owned by it are to be handled by the Forest Department in a better manner, the concept of WCE was brought in and therefore, it cannot be construed as they are not functions of the State. He submits that the husbands of the applicants and applicants were appointed by the Forest Department and the Service Registers of these applicants show the same. He further submits that the question as to whether the employees borne under specific projects are Government Servants or not, is no more res integra in view of several decisions in this regard.

19. It is submitted that the KSAT, by its order dated 23-06-2011 in the case of Kollegal Marananji Vs. State of Karnataka and another in Application No.3424 of 2010 and connected matters held that, the applicants who were working in a different Government Silk Filatures and Government Silk Twisting and Weaving Factory are entitled for pension and other monetary benefits as they were 39 Government Servants. He further submits that the Tribunal had also placed reliance in respect of previous orders passed by the Tribunal dated 03-02-2009 in the case of Sri H.S. Somashekhar and others vs. State of Karnataka and another in Application Nos.6723-6727 of 2004 and connected matters. In these two matters the Tribunal has categorically come to the conclusion that the employees working in Government Silk Filatures and Government Silk Twisting and Weaving Factory are the Government Servants insofar as the entitlement of the pension under Rule 285 is concerned. It is also submitted that State of Karnataka had preferred W.P.No.21581 and W.P.Nos.22851 to 22898/2009 against the decision of the Tribunal in H.S. Somashekhar's case and the Writ Petition came to be dismissed confirming the finding of the Tribunal. Not only that, S.L.P preferred against it also came to be dismissed by the Apex Court and therefore, he contends that the present petition is bereft of any merits. 40

20. The learned counsel for the respondents/applicants has also taken us through the various correspondences between the writ petitioners and the respondent-Corporation. He submits that the Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation has categorically informed the Government that at no point of time the respondents/applicants were treated as employees of the Corporation. He submits that though the nomenclature of ‘Plantation Mali' was changed as 'Task Supervisor' etc., it was in pursuance to a Settlement. Therefore, he contends that the correspondence between the Forest Department and the respondent-Corporation clearly establish that the fate of the husbands of the applicants and the applicants was kept hanging between the absorption of their services by KFDC and continuing their services with the Government Department. However, the fact remains that husbands of the applicants and applicants were appointed by the Department much prior to the rubber plantations were handed over to the respondent-corporation and therefore, 41 they are to be treated as Government Servants. For these reasons he has contended that no fault can be found with the finding given by the Tribunal and consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Analysis and Conclusions:

21. We have gone through the extensive correspondence between the Department and respondent-Corporation. A gist of the important correspondence would show the following aspects: A. Husbands of the applicants and the applicants were appointed as early as in the year 1975. But none of the letters of their appointment did mention anything about WCE. B. After the services of the 'Plantation Malies' were placed at the disposal of the respondent-Corporation, retirement and other aspects were dealt by the KFDC Rubber Plantation Division. C. The fact that some of the applicants who were employees died after their retirement and their death certificates are also produced. 42 D. The respondent-corporation had also prepared a chart showing the names, date of birth, date of entry into service, mode of retirement, eligible service for pension, basic salary, pension available, family pension and the total amount payable by the Government and the refund of CPF to be made by the employer. The respondents/applicants submitted representations for the pensionary benefits. E. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has noted in his letter to the Government that there is no material to show whether the consent/option was obtained at the time of absorption of the services of the husbands' for the applicants and the applicants in respondent-Corporation. He also recommended that the request of the 'Task Supervisors' (Formerly Plantation Malies') may be considered favourably in order to facilitate sanction of pensionary benefits to them. F. The Government sought clarification as to on what ground CPF was adopted and it was replied by the respondent-corporation that the Plantation Malies were deputed to KFDC and in case of retirement, the benefits were paid to them from the Provident Fund Account and they are entitled to pensionary benefits. 43 G. The letter dated 19-21/7/2014 extensively mentioned and answers to the queries posed by the Government which reads as below: 1 If these people are treated deputation, where orders deputation and for what period. Rubber Plantation- During the period when it was under the limits Forest Department. a.The Plantation Gardeners who appointed during the year 1967-68 by the Forest Department and the same is entered register b) That in the Government order No. FFD.26.FRP.78 dated 27-09-1980 the supervisory work of Rubber plantation which was under the limits Department of Forest and its supervision Forest "Karnataka Development Corporation Ltd" with effect from 01-07- 1981. is handed over c) In such a way at the time of handing over the same all the officer/staff who were cadre's working in rubber sector transferred on deputation Forest Development Ltd (Deputy Conservator of Forest, Range Forest Officer, Deputy Range Forest Guard, Forest Officer, Gardener, Attenders Guards). Drivers, d) Among them the gardeners as per the order of the ten chief Conservator of (Development) vide No.54/80-81 dated. 112-1980 was 44 pleased to deputed to Corporation and about which it was entered in the service register. Similarly they have been relieved from the service of Forest Department on 30- 06- 1981 afternoon and the same is recorded. e) But the Chief Conservator of Forest (Development) vide his office order No.54/80-81, the copy of which not made available anywhere. Thereafter they were identified in the cadre of Tapping Supervisor, Work Supervisor etc., and they continued in service on deputation in the Corporation. f) Chief Conservator of Forest (Development) vide his Official Memorandum No. EST (1) CR- 100/80-81 dated 05-01-1981 view staff members in Work changed establishment" of the Department who were in the limits of Forest Department handed Plantation over to the Maintenance Corporation and from the date of which transferred g) Chief Conservator of Forest (Development) vide his order No. 24/81-82 dated 08-07-1981 which it is stated, the staff members of "Work Establishment" changed Forest of Department who have been transferred Development to Forest Corporation and Cashew Development Corpn and to whom it was told not to give deputation 45 allowance, told that they will be appointed to these corporations as plantation gardener. That Staff 15-03-1985 a h) Memorandum was entered between the Trade Union Industrial Union "Karnataka "Managing Committee Corporation and as per which clause the Memorandum of No.09 of previous understanding plantation gardener getting pay scale of various cadres and in order to re-designate them as "Task Supervisor and agreed to pay the salary to them equivalent to the post of "Tapping Supervisor". 2 Where about lien in the department The staff of Forest the Corporation on deputation and thereafter re- transferring their service to the Department or recalling them about which the order passed by Deputy the Hon'ble Conservator of Forest (Dev.) vide order No.5/83-84 dated 03-04- 1984 under which the transfer order passed, but it appears that they have not been relieved. Therefore it understood that the right on their Forest department. be with 3 Has KFDC paid pension 1) That except Plantation gardener, all other cadres deputed from Forest 46 contribution Govt. all years? Department i.e. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Range Forest Officer, Deputy Range Forest Officer, Forest Guard all such staff members to whom pensionary contribution being paid by the corporation to the Government with effect from 01-07- 1981. 12) But on verification of records, forthcoming why pension contribution is not paid only to the Plantation Gardner. reason 4 How people are brought under CPF, when deputation? 15-03-1985 That Memorandum understanding entered into and as per which it has come to know as they are the staff members of Corporation and as per the Rules of Company Act- they may be brought into Provident Fund) Scheme 5 How can KFDC promoted them in their organization? That on 15.3.1985 the Memorandum of understanding entered into and as per which it has come to know as they are the staff members of Corporation- Till today for only one depending upon his Gardener eligibility the promotion was given to him. H. In pursuance to such correspondence, even the Government had obtained the details of employees who 47 retired, numbers, financial implications etc. Invariably, the Managing Director of KFDC maintained that some of the Plantation Malis whose services were placed with KFDC were reverted back to the Department.

22. The above correspondences establish that there was no clarity between the Department and the KFDC and the Plantation Malies were re-designated as 'Task Supervisors' and their services were extracted by KFDC. Even CPF was also recovered and the KFDC has represented contribution would be transferred to the Government as per Rules in case the pension is granted to such employees. It is also evident that when the services of these 'Plantation Malies' were lent to the KFDC, their consent or option were not obtained. The fact remains that the Rubber Plantations were belonging to the Government and their services were obtained for maintaining the government plantations. Be it under WCE or any other establishment, it cannot be overlooked that they were discharging the duties as wished by the Government Department. The fact that whether the salaries of the 48 employees were borne out of the Government exchequer or from the WCE cannot be considered to be a criterion to decide whether the employee is a Government Servant or not for the purpose of entitlement of the pension.

23. In the case of H.S. Somashekhar Vs. State of Karnataka, and connected matters it was observed by KSAT at paras 8,9 and 10 as below: "8. No doubt, rule 2(2) of the KCSRs excludes the applicability of provisions of KCSRS to the persons employed in industrial undertakings of the Government, but rule 2A inserted in KCSRs by Government Order No. FD 119 SRS 69 dated 18-8-1970 which came into effect on 5-9-1970 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 2, Rule 285 shall, with effect from 16th March 1970, apply to all persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka.

9. The question as to whether the applicants can be considered as persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka does not remain for consideration in view of the decision of the High Court the decisions of this Tribunal in earlier. proceedings. In Sr.D.Rangaiah vs. State of Karnataka 49 and others (A.No.1981 of 1998) decided by this Tribunal on 19-1-1990, this question was considered and the following observation made by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.5128 of 1977, was referred to: ”6. Admittedly, the Mill is owned, controlled and managed by the Government. Even the name of the Mill indicates that it is wholly owned by the Government. It is not the case of the respondents that the Mill is a Government Company within the meaning of that expression occurring in Section 617 of the Companies Act of 1956 or is a statutory Corporation established under an act of Legislature. The post itself has been sanctioned by the Government. The appointment of the person to the post has also been made by the Government. When the appointment is made by the Government to the post sanctioned by it, there was undoubtedly the relationship of master and servant between the Government and the petitioner. In the Budget Estimates of the Government of Kamataka from year to year, the Government Spun silk Mills, Channapatna and the post of Security Officer with which we are concerned are shown under the Industries and Commerce Department of Government under Budget Head "320 Industries". From this it is clear that the salary of the post held 50 by the petitioner is paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State.

7. A constituent State like the State of Karnataka under our constitution cannot claim to have defence forces or a post connected with defence and, therefore, any post in a government Factory or in a Government Department has necessarily to be treated as a 'Civil Post' or is a post on the civil side as distinguished from the defence side of the administration. On these facts and on the application of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Kanak chandra's case and Rajamma's case, the one and the only inescapable conclusion that follows is the post held by the petitioner was a 'civil post under the State' and the plea of the respondents to the contrary is legally unsound and is factually incorrect.

8. Sri Venkatachalaiah contended that the Mill is an Industry and the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of those terms occurring in the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) and, therefore, the post held by him cannot bel treated as a 'civil post under the State'. In my opinion whether the Mill is an industry or the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of those terms occurring in the 1947 Act assuming them to be correct has no relevance in deciding 51 whether the post held by him was a 'civil post under the State'. The fact that the Mill is an Industry or the petitioner was a workman for the purpose of the 1947 Act cannot and does not make any difference in ascertaining whether the post held by the petitioner was a 'cávil post under the State'. In Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board's case, the Supreme Court was not called upon to decide this question, and, therefore, the principles enunciated in that case have no application to the real question that arises for determination in the case. A careful analysis of the Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board's case does not support the contention of Sri.Venkatachalalah and I, therefore, reject the same."

10. Similar view was taken by this Tribunal in B.Anthony vs. State of Karnataka in A.No.2543 of 1989 decided on 2-3-1990, L.G.Lingalah vs. State of Karnataka in A.No.5337 of 1998 decided on 9-3-1990 and Sr.N.G.Keshava Murthy vs. State of Karnataka in A.No.3954 of 1997 decided on 7-8-1998. In para-6 of the Order dated 2-3-1990 made in A.No.2543 of 1989, referred, to above, this Tribunal has concluded that following the decision-of the Tribunal in A.No.1081 of 1998, they are in full agreement and hold that the employees working industrial undertakings 52 (Government Filatures) are government servants. In N.G.Keshava Murthy's case, (A.No.3954 of 1997), after discussion, this Tribunal held that the applicant therein was entitled to the pensionary benefits as were granted to Sn.S.Chandrashekaraiah in Order No. E. PEN 1525/75-76 dated 16-2-1976 and Order No. CI 63 DGA 69 dated 20-8-1970. The principle of law in such matters is that it is not necessary for every person to approach a Court for relief similar to the one already granted by the Court. After a decision has been rendered by the Court it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases before them (Nagappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1986 Kar. Page 3093)."

24. The above conclusions of the Tribunal were questioned in W.P.No.21581/2009 and connected matters before this Court. By order dated 7-8-2009, the said writ petition came to be dismissed observing in para 5 as below: "5. The material on record would clearly show that the Tribunal, by following the earlier decision of the Tribunal, wherein, declaration had been granted on identical applications to the effect that persons working in Government Factory and Government Silk Filatures were 53 Government servants and their conditions of service and pension were required to be governed by KCS Rules, the Tribunal has allowed the applications filed by the respondents herein. The finding of the Tribunal that the applicants respondents herein are Government servants and their conditions of service and pension are governed by the KCS Rules no longer res integra as in identical case, wherein the Tribunal had allowed Application No 3954/1997 filed before it by order dated 22.10.1998 the same was challenged by the appellant herein before this Court in W.P. No.30597/1998 and the said writ petition was dismissed by division Bench by order dated

22.10.1998 and special leave petition to Appeal (Civil) preferred by the herein to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order the Division Bench of this Count has been dismissed and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. 32507/1998 dated

22.10.1998 has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Count on 30.05.1999 in C.C. No.1458/1999. Therefore, it is clear that the finding given by the Tribunal that the applicants-respondents herein are Government servants and that their applications shall be considered individually by treating them as Government servants is justified and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error or legality as to call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court...". 54

25. Thereafter, in the case of Smt.Kollegal Marananji and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another A.Nos.3424/2010 and connected matters, it was observed by KSAT at paras 4 and 4.1 as below: "4. The same issues raised in these applications were considered by this Tribunal in Application no.6723 to 6727/2004 and Application No.4195 to 4233/2005; The former batch of Applications were Bed by some employees of Government Silk Filatures/Factories at Membali, Mudigundam and Santhemarnahali. Application No. 4195 to 4233/2005 were filed by Karnataka Government Silk Industries concern trade Union Federation and 38 employees of Government Silk Filatures//Factories who were working as Supervisors, Knotters, Asst. Managers, Market Assistants, Machanics, etc. The Tribunal considering the provision of Rule 2A of KCS R., , that Rule 285 shall apply to all persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka (including persons employed in industrial undertakings of the Government, the decisions of this Tribunal dated

19.1.1990 In A No. 1981/1998, (Sri.D.RANGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA), in A.No.2543/1989 (B.ANTHONY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA decided on 2.3.1990), dated

7.8.1990 in A./No.3954/1997 (N.G KESHAVAMURTHY v., 55 STATE OF KARNATAKA) and date 27.6.2008 IN A NOS.844 TO 847/1998 and the Government orders No.E.PEN.1525/75-76 dtd.16.2.1976 and No.CI 63 DGA 69 dated 20.8.1970 has decided on 3.2.2009 in A no..6723 to 6727/2004 d/w A. No.4195 to 4233/2005 that the Applicants by virtue of Rule 2A of the K.C.S.Rs., are entitled to the pensionary benefits, but, as regards leave, pay, etc., they are governed by Work Service Rules. It was ordered that all these Applications are allowed to the extent of granting pensionary benefits to the applicants and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of each of the applicant for pension on the ground that they were government servants and before sanctioning pension, required condition for refund of gratuity or contributory provident fund, etc., wherever required may be imposed by the Government.

4.1. It was also observed by the Tribunal that in view of the earlier decisions (referred to above), it is of the opinion that the question as to whether the Applicants can be considered as Government servants did not remain to be decided and consistent view will have to be taken in such matters. It was further observed that the principle of law in such matters is that it is not necessary for every person to approach a Court for relief similar to one already granted by the Court. After a decision has been rendered by the Court, it would be proper for the 56 authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases before them (NAGAPPA vs. STATE Or KARNATAKA reported in ILR 1986 KAR 3093)."

26. Thus, it is evident that the impugned order of the Tribunal unequivocally placed reliance on the decision in the case of H.S. Somashekhar and others Vs. State of Karnataka and in the case of K.Marananji Vs. State of Karnataka, while coming to the conclusion that the applications deserve to be allowed.

27. The pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and on the other hand, right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government Servant. The relevant para 14 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1983) SCC 305 placed on as below: "14. The applicants counsel also cited another two decisions in the case of D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India & Others [1983) 1 SCC 305] and State of Punjab and Another Vs. Iqbal Singh (AIR 1976 SC). The relevant 57 portion of the order in D.S.Nakara's case, reads as follows: "20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others, wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules."

28. From the above discussion, it is clear that husbands of the applicants and applicants were initially recruited as 'Plantation Malies' and thereafter, their services were placed in 58 the hands of respondent-Corporation on account of a policy decision taken by the Government to hand over the management of the Rubber Plantation to the KFDC and, no consent or option were taken while transferring their services. The respondent-Corporation considering the plight of the applicants and their cause being taken up by some of the Unions, felt that their service conditions have to be improved and thereby entered into a Settlement with the Karnataka Industrial Staff Union. This would not come in the way of the right to pension by the respondents/applicants. It is unfortunate that the tussle between respondent-Corporation and the Government regarding the fate of these Plantation Malies did not settle and in the meanwhile, some of the Plantation Malies have died and their family members are in quandary.

29. In view of the fact that the issue has been given a quietus by this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. H.S. Somashekhar and others, the present case being an 59 identical situation, we find no merit in the present writ petition. Hence the following order. ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to say that while calculating the emoluments of pension payable, the amount already paid to each of the applicants has to be taken into consideration. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE tsn*