- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7028 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI L S BALASUNDAR S/O LATE L A SHESHAIAH AGE ABOUT 77 YEARS RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER K S I C UNIT GOVERNMENT SPUN SILK MILLS CHANNAPATNA R/AT NO 2414 BDA LAYOUT 2ND MAIN, HAL 3RD STAGE OLD AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE - 560017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE SERICULTURE MS BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA SILK INDUSTRIES CORPORATION (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE) III FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING MG ROAD BENGALURU - 560001. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A & E REP BY ITS ACCOUNTS OFFICER PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RUBEN JACOB, AAG FOR R1 R2 & R4: SRI. T P MUTHAMMA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:22.2.2021 PASSED BY R-2 ANNEXURE-A QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.22.2.2021 PASSED BY R-2 ANNEXURE- A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A, whereby the request of the petitioner for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement and for grant of pensionary benefits has been denied. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Section Officer (Technical) during 1970 by the Director of Sericulture and posted to erstwhile Government Spun Silk - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 Mills, Channapatna. In the year 1980, the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') was formed consisting of four units, GSSM CPT, SWF Mysore, GSF TNP and GSP KKP. The petitioner continued in service in Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation till 1995. Due to some personal inconvenience, the petitioner requested the management to relieve him under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Due to non-existence of Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the Corporation, the petitioner submitted resignation letter and he was relieved from service on 30.12.1995. On 20.02.2016, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-D requesting for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Pursuant to his request, the Board has passed a resolution dated 26.09.2017 vide Annexure-J and recommended to the Government to consider the case of the petitioner under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and grant pensionary benefits, since similar benefit has been granted to other - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 three employees. Since no action has been taken by the Government, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.37210/2018 and this Court by order dated 11.06.2019 has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of delay. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.A.No.3809/2019 and this Court by order dated 22.09.2020 has directed the Government to take further action for sanction of pensionary benefits to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, since no action has been taken by the Government, the petitioner filed C.C.C.No.30/2021 and the said contempt petition came to be disposed of 03.03.2021. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 at Annexure-A, whereby the request of the petitioner for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement and for grant of pensionary benefits, has been denied. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in Government Spun Silk - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 Mills in the year 1970. Later, in the year 1980, the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation was formed consisting of four units including Government Spun Silks Mills, Channapatna. Due to some personal problems, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 30.12.1995. Thereafter, he realized that he is entitled for pension and hence, he submitted a representation dated 20.02.2016 seeking for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He further contended that the case of similarly situated persons namely, Sri.M.P.Shivarudrappa, Mr.V.I.Mamadapur and Sri.G.R.Shivakumar, who have submitted resignation and later sought for conversion to voluntary retirement, has been considered and pensionary benefit has been granted to them. Therefore, the petitioner has also made a similar request. On consideration of petitioner’s request, the Board has passed a resolution on 26.09.2017 and has taken a decision to recommend the case of the petitioner for voluntary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 retirement to the Government on the ground of parity. Inspite of the Board recommendations, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order at Annexure-A and the same is unsustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3809/2019 has given a clear direction to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of the pensionary benefits. Inspite of that, the impugned order has been passed denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The impugned order is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.A.No.3809/2019. He further contended that similarly situated persons like that of the petitioner, who have submitted the resignation and later converted as voluntary retirement, have been granted pensionary benefits. Only in respect of the petitioner, such a relief has been denied. This amounts to discrimination and violating the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 Lastly, the learned counsel has submitted that in the affidavit dated 20.06.2024 filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2-State, it is stated that the petitioner has been directly appointed to the Corporation in the year 1980 on contract basis and he was not an employee, who has been transferred from the Government Spun Silk Mills. Since the petitioner is now 82 years, he is unable to file a reply to the said affidavit. Hence, with the above contentions, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that in the order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.3809/2019, the Court has not given any positive direction to the respondents to grant or sanction any pensionary benefits to the petitioner, it has only directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits in accordance with law. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the State - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 has considered the case of the petitioner and after going through the original records, it has come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s case cannot be considered under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and hence, the request of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits has been rejected. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the petitioner has submitted the resignation on 30.12.1995 and after lapse of more than 20 years, on 20.02.2016, he has filed a representation seeking for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement and for grant of pensionary benefits. There is an inordinate delay in making such a representation. He further contended that the State has filed an affidavit on 20.06.2024 after verifying the original records available with the Board as well as the State, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is directly appointed with the respondent No.3, Corporation in November 1980 on contract basis and he is not a transferred employee from - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 Government Spun Silk Mills. As per the Rules of respondent No.3-Corporation, there is no provision for granting pension. In that aspect also, he is not entitled for grant of relief of pensionary benefits. Lastly, he has submitted that among three persons, whom the petitioner claims to be the similarly situated persons that their resignations have been converted as voluntary retirement and granted pensionary benefits, only one person has submitted the resignation and other two persons have quit the job without intimation. While submitting Form No.7 by the Corporation to the Government, the Corporation has wrongly made entry that they have submitted applications for voluntary retirement. On the basis of Form No.7, the Government has sanctioned pension to the said three persons. Now, it is brought to the notice of the Government that their records have been tampered and none of the three persons have filed applications for voluntary retirement. Therefore, now, the Government is taking action to conduct enquiry and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 also taking steps to stop payment of pension to the said three persons and also to recover the amount from the said persons, which is already paid. Therefore, in view of the said fact, the petitioner cannot claim similar relief on the ground of parity. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.Muthukumar and Others vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 151. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents- State. Perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Section Officer (Technical) during 1970 by the Director of Sericulture and posted to erstwhile Government Spun Silk Mills, Channapatna. It is also not in dispute that during 1980, the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 was formed consisting of four units, GSSM CPT, SWF Mysore, GSF TNP and GSP KKP. 7. The State has filed an affidavit on 20.06.2024 after serving copy of the same to the petitioner and has taken a specific contention that the petitioner had joined to the respondent No.3, Corporation on contract basis in November 1980. The relevant paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit dated 20.06.2024 reads as under: “5. I state that in Volume-II of the Service Register the service particulars relate to service rendered at R-3 Corporation. The designation is recorded as Works Manager and it is recorded that the petitioner joined the R-3 Corporation on Contract Basis (3 years contract) in November 1980 and continued to work until his resignation and the petitioner was relieved on 30-12-1995. His designation is recorded as Works Manager initially and thereafter as Director (Operations). 6. I state that Respondent No.3 Karnataka State Industries Corporation (KSIC) was registered and founded on 10.04.1980, and four Government factories (including Government Spun Silk Mills, Channapatna) were handed over to KSIC on 01.09.1981 vide Government Order dated 30.08.1981.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 8. Therefore, from the above, it is very clear that the petitioner is not the employee, who has been transferred from the Government Spun Silk Mills to the Corporation. The petitioner has joined the respondent No.3, Corporation in November 1980 and worked till 30.12.1995 i.e., the date of resignation. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8906/2021 c/w W.P.No.8030/2020 disposed of on 22.02.2024 has held that a person, who has directly joined to the Corporation, is not entitled for pensionary benefits. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted the resignation on 30.12.1995, and after lapse of 20 years, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 20.02.2016 requesting for conversion of his resignation as voluntary retirement. There is delay of 20 years in submitting the representation. On that ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for conversion of his - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 resignation as voluntary retirement and for grant of pensionary benefits. 10. In the order dated 22.09.2020 passed in W.A.No.3809/2019, the Division Bench of this Court has not passed any order giving positive directions to the State Government to sanction pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The Court has only directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of the pensionary benefits in accordance with law. The relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order dated 22.09.2020 passed in W.A.No.3809/2019 reads thus: 13. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on two grounds: firstly, stating that the appellant is not entitled for the said conversion as no document was placed to that effect and secondly, there was a delay of nearly two decades in approaching the Court since the resignation was accepted on 30.12.1995. We find that both the reasons are erroneous for the reason that Annexures ‘H’ and ‘J’ are the very documents which are on record with regard to the decision taken by - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 respondent No.3 in the matter of grant of pension to the appellant by considering his case as one of voluntary retirement and not resignation simpliciter. Secondly, delay and laches could not have been counted from the date of resignation which was on 30.12.1995 as the decision on the request made by the appellant was taken only on 26.09.2017 and same was processed and communication was also sent on 20.11.2017 and 15.12.2017 referred to above to the respective authorities, but no action was taken by respondent No.3. In the above background, the appellant was justified in seeking a writ of mandamus to respondent No.3 to forward the service particulars to respondent No.2 to take a decision as per Board proceedings dated 26.09.2017 for grant of pensionary benefits to the concerned appellant. 14. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and direct respondent No.3 to forward the service particulars of the appellant duly certified in terms of the communication dated 15.12.2017 issued by respondent No.2 with the proposal for taking further action for sanction of pensionary benefits to the appellant. The same shall be sent within a period of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. “ 11. Further, in the order dated 03.03.2021 passed in C.C.C.No.30/2021, there is a finding that the Division Bench in W.A.No.3809/2019 has only issued direction to the respondents to pass an order in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no any positive direction in the order passed in W.A.No.3809/2019 to grant pension to the petitioner. It is for the authority to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner has been directly appointed to the respondent No.3, Corporation on contract basis in the year 1980. There is no provision in the Rules of respondent No.3, Corporation for granting pension to the Corporation employees. On this ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for grant of pensionary benefits. 12. Further, the claim of the petitioner is that other three employees, namely, Sri.M.P.Shivarudrappa, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 Mr.V.I.Mamadapur and Sri.G.R.Shivakumar have been granted pension. In the statement of objections filed by the State Government, it is stated that in Form No.7 submitted by the respondent No.3, Corporation to the Government, it is wrongly mentioned as ‘V.R.S.’ and that the three persons have submitted application for voluntary retirement. On enquiry, it is found that there are no such applications filed by the said three persons. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General has made a statement before this Court that the Government has initiated action against the said three persons for conducting enquiry and to take action against all three persons and other employees, who are involved in the case. The State will also take action for recovery of the amount from the three persons. Therefore, in that background, the petitioner cannot claim for pensionary benefits on the ground of parity. The Apex Court in the case of R.Muthukumar (supra) has held their cannot be - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 any negative equality. Paragraph 28 of the judgment is relevant and same is extracted hereunder: 28. A principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this court ruled that: “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.” 14. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 passed by - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33628 WP No. 7028 of 2021 respondent No.2 at Annexure-A. The petition is devoid of merits. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30