Writ Petition No. 22583 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17774 WP No. 22583 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22583 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH M AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE MAHABALA SHETTY, OCCUPATION, RETIRED ASI/ EXECUTIVE, CISF UNIT MASTER CONTROL FACILITY (MCF) HASSAN, SALAGAME POST, DISTRICT HASSAN 573 201. RESIDING AT MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, C.K.ROAD, MALUR P.S MANDAGADDE, MALUR HOBLI, THIRTHAHALLY TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 232. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P A KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17774 WP No. 22583 of 2023 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE HEAD QUARTERS, BLOCK NO. 13-CGO, COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 3. REGIONAL PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, D WING, RAJAJIBHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600090. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO. 36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560032. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT MCF, POST SALAGAME, DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. UMESH P B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; SRI. RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS SERVICE UNDER CBI BEYOND 05 YEARS DEPUTATION PERIOD I.E, FORM 10.06.1998 TO 30.06.1999 IN TERMS OF PARAGRAPH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17774 WP No. 22583 of 2023 8.2 OF DOPT OM DATED 17.06.2010 ANNEXURE-G AS MODIFIED BY OM DATED 18.05.2018 ANNEXURE-H SO AS TO MAKE THE PETITIONER ENTITLED FOR COUNTING OF THIS SERVICE AS A QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR ALL PURPOSES; DIRECTING THE R-3 REGIONAL PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, CISF, CHENNAI TO ISSUE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER (PPO) FORTHWITH AND TO RELEASE THE ARREARS OF PENSION, GRATUITY AND COMMUTATION OF PENSION AMOUNT ALONG WITH ADMISSIBLE INTEREST ON ARREARS OF PENSION AND GRATUITY AMOUNT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has entered service with the Central Industrial Security Force [CISF] in the year 1986 and he has retired as an Assistant Sub- Inspector on voluntary retirement with effect from 31.03.2022. The petitioner was on deputation with the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] for the period beginning from 10.06.1993 and ending as of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17774 WP No. 22583 of 2023 30.06.1999. The petitioner's tenure on deputation is beyond the maximum permissible deputation period and consequentially, the petitioner's retirement benefits are settled excluding his service on deputation between 11.06.1998 and 30.06.1999 denying the increment earned during this period. 2. As such, the petitioner has sought for direction to the third respondent [the Regional Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Chennai] to issue Pension Payment Order upon re-computing the pension payable including the service on the additional period of deputation and the increment earned during this year. The assertion that the petitioner was on deputation during the additional period between 11.06.1998 and 30.06.1999 is undisputed. The respondents have not placed on record copies of the Office Memorandum that were in force as of the period during which the petitioner was on deputation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17774 WP No. 22583 of 2023 3. The deputation for the period after June 2010 is covered by the different Office Memorandums issued, and the details of these Office Memorandums are: Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 Office Memorandums Dated No.6/8/2009-Estt.[Pay II] 17.06.2010 DOPT OM No.2/6/2016-Estt [Pay-II] 17.02.2016 DOPT OM No.2/6/2016-Estt [Pay-II] 23.02.2017 F. No.2/6/2018-Estt [Pay-II] 18.05.2018 These Office Memorandums alter the initial period of deputation for which an Officer could be sent on deputation, and they read that if the extension is beyond the initial years, the Borrowing Organization will have to grant an extension for the first additional year after obtaining orders from the concerned as mentioned and for the next year with the approval of the Ministry of the Borrowing Department. Originally, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17774 WP No. 22583 of 2023 the initial period of deputation was three years, and it is increased to five years. 4. Sri P. A. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the terms of these Office Memorandums submits that these are issued in recognition of the extant Policy that the Borrowing Organization will have to grant extension with the prior orders from the concerned and if the petitioner has been continued on deputation for any period beyond the initial tenure of deputation and the concerned has failed to grant extension, the petitioner cannot be penalized. The learned counsel emphasizes the fact that the petitioner was on deputation for the additional period before his repatriation to the CISF is not in dispute. 5. As against these submissions, on behalf of the respondents, the following submissions are made: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17774 WP No. 22583 of 2023 5.1 Sri Umesh P B, the learned counsel on behalf of CISF and its Officers, submits that if prior approval as is contemplated is placed on record, there would be no impediment for the third respondent to issue Pension Payment Order on re- computation including the tenure of the additional deputation period and the increment earned during this period. 5.2 Sri Rahul Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel on behalf of Sri Prasanna Kumar who is on record for the fourth respondent, submits that his instructions are that the fourth respondent will not consider the petitioner's request as an adversarial proceeding and there could be just orders in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner has indeed served on deputation. The learned counsel seeks to emphasize that the CBI has issued a Communication 03.07.2023 referring to the Office Order No.104/1996 dated 13.05.1996 and Office Order No.226/1999 dated 30.06.1999. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17774 WP No. 22583 of 2023 6. However, this last submission will be no help as copies of these orders are not placed on record, and whether there was any prior approval for the extension for the additional period remains undisclosed. This Court, in the light of the grounds canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, and the circumstances as discussed, is persuaded to opine that if it was the obligation of the Borrowing Organization [CBI] to secure prior approval from the concerned [which is formalized in the subsequent Official Memorandum], and if there is any failure and the petitioner has continued on deputation for the additional period, he cannot be penalized with the denial of benefits that would accrue to him from such service including increment. In the light of the afore:
Decision
ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17774 WP No. 22583 of 2023 [b] The third respondent is directed to issue Pension Payment Order within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order computing the benefits that would accrue with the inclusion of the service rendered by the petitioner for the period between 10.06.1998 and 30.06.1999 and the increment earned during this time. [c] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the third respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof. Consequentially, the petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-