Karnataka High Court
Dr. Ganapathi Bhat vs Vasudeva Asaranna on 17 March, 2021
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, N S Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.A.No.2674/2018 C/W W.A.No.2673/2018,
W.A.No.2841/2018 AND W.A.No.2842/2018 (S-RES)
In W.A.No.2674/2018
BETWEEN:
Dr. Ganapathi Bhat,
S/o Parameshwara Bhat,
Aged about 53 years,
Occ: Lecturer,
Sri Durga Parameshwari,
First Grade College,
Kateel - 574 148.
Mangalore Dakshina Kannada. ... Appellant
(By Sri. Govindaraj.K., Advocate)
AND:
1. Vasudeva Asaranna,
Aged about 76 years,
S/o Late Srinivasa Asranna,
2
2. Srihari Narayanadasa Asaranna,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Late Sadananda Asaranna,
3. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary to
Government,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Buildings,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. Commissioner for Religious and
Charitable Endowments in the
State of Karnataka, Tippu Sultan,
Palace Road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
5. Sri. Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada,
Represented by its Administrator.
6. Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
(Collegiate Education),
M.S.Buildings,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for
Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocate for R-1 & R-2;
Smt. Vani.H, AGA for R-3, R-4 and R-6;
R-5 is served and unrepresented)
3
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, set aside the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8044-45/2010 dated
17.07.2018 and consequently dismiss the Writ Petition in
the interest of justice and equity.
In W.A.No.2673/2018
BETWEEN:
Dr. Ganapathi Bhat,
S/o Parameshwara Bhat,
Aged about 53 years, Occ: Lecturer,
Sri Durga Parameshwari First Grade College,
Kateel - 574 148.
Dakshina Kannada District. ... Appellant
(By Sri. Govindaraj.K., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri. Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustees.
2. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary to
Government, Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Commissioner for Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments in the
State of Karnataka, Tippu Sultan,
Palace Road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
4
4. Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
(Collegiate Education),
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 0010 ... Respondents
(By Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for
Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocate for R-1;
Smt. Vani.H, AGA for R-2 to R-4)
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.10964/2018
dated 17/07/2018 and consequently dismiss the Writ
Petition.
In W.A.No.2841/2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. Bhaskar.V.Bhat,
S/o Venkatramana Bhat,
Aged about 60 years,
Retd. Lecturer, Sri Durga Parameshwari
First Grade College, Kateel - 574 148,
Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada. ... Appellant
(By Sri. K.J.Kamath and Sri. K.G.Kamath, Advocate)
AND:
1. Vasudeva Asaranna,
Aged about 76 years,
S/o Late Srinivasa Asranna,
Hereditary Archaks,
Sree Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.
5
2. Srihari Narayanadasa Asaranna,
Aged aobut 47 years,
S/o Late Sadananda Asaranna,
Hereditary Archaks,
Sree Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.
3. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. Commissioner for Religious and
Charitable Endowments in the
State of Karnataka,
Tippu Sultan, Palace Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
5. Sri. Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada,
Represented by its Administrator.
6. Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
(Collegiate Education),
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. P.S.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for
Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocte for R-1 and R-2;
Smt. Vani.H, AGA for R-3, R-4 and R-6)
6
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order
passed by the Learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.8044/8045/2010 dated 17/07/2018 and
consequently dismiss the Writ Petition in the interest of
justice and equity.
In W.A.No.2842/2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. Bhaskar.V.Bhat,
S/o Venkatramana Bhat,
Aged about 60 years,
Retd. Lecturer, Sri Durga Parameshwari
First Grade College,
Kateel - 574 148. ... Appellant
(By Sri. K.J.Kamath and Sri. K.G.Kamath, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada, Represented by its
Hereditary Trustees.
2. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary to
Government,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Buildings,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Commissioner for Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments
7
in the State of Karnataka, Tippu Sultan,
Palace Road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
4. Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
(Collegiate Education),
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. P.S.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for
Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocate for R-1 and R-2;
Smt. Vani H., AGA for R-3, R-4 and R-6.)
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.8044-8045/2010 C/w W.P.No.10964/2018 dated
17-07-2018 and consequently dismiss the Writ Petition
in the interest of justice and equity.
These appeals, having been heard and reserved for
judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day,
SANJAY GOWDA, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are preferred by two lecturers, namely, Dr.Ganapathi Bhat and Dr.Bhaskar V.Bhat.
2. Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple, a Muzrai Institution, is running an Educational Institution called 8 Sri Durga Parameshwari First Grade College at Kateelu, Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution', for short). The appellants were appointed as lecturers in the said Institution, which is admittedly, not admitted to grant-in-aid and is thus an un-aided Institution.
3. Though the lecturers in the said Institution were not entitled in the normal course to UGC pay scales, nevertheless, the Institution in the year 1994 extended UGC pay scales to them.
4. The fact that UGC pay scales were extended in the year 1994 is clear from a reading of the communication, which is produced as Annexure-R12 to W.P.Nos.8044-55/2010, which has been issued by the Director of Collegiate Education to the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. This fact is also affirmed by the finding recorded in this regard by this Court in the order passed in W.P.No.46833/2004 connected with W.P.No.48831/2004, in which the 9 present appellants were the writ petitioners along with others.
5. It is not in dispute that the UGC pay scales were revised and the State Government extended the revised UGC pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996 to its employees by its order dated 15.11.1999.
6. The Managing Committee of the Institution, thereafter, passed a resolution proposing to extend revised UGC pay scales to the eligible lecturers of the Institution as per the resolution dated 31.07.2000, which is produced as Annexure-R7 to W.P.Nos.8044-45/2010.
7. The Administrator of the Muzrai Institutions on the basis of the recommendation of the Management Committee of the Institution, submitted a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner to extend the revised UGC pay scales to the appellants. Thereafter, in a meeting chaired by the Deputy Commissioner, a decision was taken to extend the revised UGC pay scales to the appellants. 10
8. However, the Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments for the State of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as 'the Endowment Commissioner') exercising his suo motu powers stayed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner extending the revised UGC pay scales.
9. The lecturers submitted a representation to the Endowment Commissioner to vacate the interim order by which extension of revised UGC pay scales had been stayed.
10. The Endowment Commissioner by an order dated 05.06.2004 came to the conclusion that the revised UGC pay scales had been extended by the Deputy Commissioner without obtaining his prior approval i.e., the Endowment Commissioner who was the competent authority and therefore, the said decision could not be sustained.
11
11. The Endowment Commissioner accordingly proceeded to confirm the stay of the order by which he had withheld the implementation of extension of revised UGC pay scales.
12. This order of the Endowment Commissioner was challenged by the lecturers before this Court in W.P.No.46833/2004 connected with W.P.No.48831/2004.
13. This Court by order dated 03.01.2006 dismissed the writ petitions. However, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court stated as follows:
"6. The college where these petitioners are working is run by Sri.Durga Parameshwari Temple, a Muzarai Institution. The Deputy Commissioner of the District is the Muzarai Officer who is the Chairman of the said temple. A Financial commitment of the nature of extending a UGC scale has to be approved by the Endowment Commissioner. Admittedly, the college run by the temple is not admitted to grant in aid. In the absence of aid from the 12 Government, the management of the college is under no obligation to extend the UGC scale. Still in the year 1994 they have extended the UGC scale by taking note of the local conditions and their financial capacities. The extension of 2002 UGC pay scale after revision cannot be automatic when there was no obligation to extend the said scale. Though the Managing Committee recommended for the said scale, without obtaining the approval of the Endowment Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner granted the said scale. It is in the context the Endowment Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings and stayed the said order. The order which was stayed was passed by the Deputy Commissioner who is the Muzarai Officer and the Endowment Commissioner is the appellate/revisional authority against such order. Whether the said order is passed in connection with the management of the temple or in connection with the management of the school, it is an order passed by a Muzarai Officer which is amenable for scrutiny by the Endowment Commissioner. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Endowment Commissioner is one without jurisdiction.13
7. In so far as the merits is concerned, when admittedly the institution is not admitted to grant in aid and there is no legal obligation to extend the UGC scale and when such scale is to be extended the approval of the Commissioner is a condition precedent, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner without obtaining the approval of Endowment Commissioner is void ab initio and the Endowment Commissioner was fully justified in setting aside the said order.
8. Admittedly, the college run by Sri.Kukke Subramanya Temple is admitted to grant in aid and, therefore, the UGC scale has been extended. Therefore, there is no discrimination as alleged, as the two institutions are not similarly placed.
9. In so far as the contention even if aid is not extended, the temple is a Muzarai temple belonging to the Government is concerned, it would not make the temple or the college run by the temple, a Government and the petitioners Government employees. However, it is always open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities for the relief of extension of revision of UGC pay scale 14 of 2002 and it is only thereafter the said pay scale could be extended in accordance with law."
(underlining by us)
14. Thus, as could be seen from the said order, this Court categorically recorded a finding that though the Institution was under no obligation to extend the UGC pay scales, it had, nevertheless, extended the UGC pay scales in the year 1994 and merely because the UGC pay scales were made applicable, the revision of UGC pay scales could not be made automatically applicable to the Lecturers.
15. This Court also held that to take a decision to extend the UGC pay scales, the approval of the Endowment Commissioner was a condition precedent and the order of the Deputy Commissioner without obtaining such approval was void ab initio and therefore the Endowment Commissioner was justified in setting aside the order.
15
16. This Court, however, observed that it was open to the lecturers to approach the appropriate authority for the relief of extension of revision of UGC pay scales of 2002 and if an appropriate decision in that regard was taken, they would be eligible for the revised UGC pay scales.
17. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the appellants submitted a representation on 23.01.2006 and sought for extension of revised UGC pay scales.
18. The Endowment Commissioner, on consideration of the said representation, proceeded to pass an order on 05.04.2006 extending the revised UGC pay scales. This order has been produced as Annexure-L to W.P.Nos.8044-45/2010.
19. The Endowment Commissioner noticed that the lecturers were in fact getting UGC pay scales for more than 12 years and since in the appointment order of the lecturers, there was a reference to UGC pay 16 scales, they were entitled for extension of the revised pay scales.
20. This order of the Endowment Commissioner was objected to by the Administrator of the Temple. Representations in that regard were submitted to the Government. The Government, by communication dated 04.07.2006, sought for certain clarifications and also a report regarding implementation of the order of the Endowment Commissioner dated 05.04.2006. The Administrator of the Temple submitted two more representations to the Government in that regard.
21. It is apparent from the representations submitted by the Administrator that the extension of the revised UGC pay scales was not being readily acceded to by the Administrator
22. The Government, however, by a communication dated 28.07.2006 directed the Administrator of the Temple to implement the order of 17 the Endowment Commissioner and the same has been produced as Annexure-T to W.P.No.8044-45/2010.
23. This order of the Endowment Commissioner and the direction of the Government to implement the order were not challenged by the Administrator of the Temple.
24. However, this order was challenged by a devotee called Sri P.Sudarshan Bhat in W.P.No.14196/2006. In the said writ petition, it was stated that certain respondents in that writ petition had given a representation restricting their claim only to Government pay scales and had given up their claim for revised UGC pay scales and the Management of the Temple had also recommended to the Endowment Commissioner to modify the order dated 05.04.2006 by which revised UGC pay scales were extended to all the lecturers.
18
25. This Court, taking note of this development and without going into other aspects of the matter, directed the Endowment Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the representation made by respondents 6, 8 to 13 and 15 therein.
26. The Endowment Commissioner, pursuant to the said order, however, proceeded to pass an order by which he stated that extension of UGC pay scales only to two lecturers would be inequitable and therefore proceeded to hold that all the lecturers would only be entitled to State Government pay scales instead of UGC pay scales.
27. This order of the Endowment Commissioner dated 15.03.2008 was impugned before this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008.This Court by order dated 20.11.2009 passed in W.P.No.6605/2008 quashed the decision of the Endowment Commissioner extending only the State Government pay scales instead of UGC pay 19 scales and this Court directed the Endowment Commissioner to consider the representation of the appellants herein and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This Court while passing the said order observed as follows:
"4. Indisputably the challenge to the order dated:5.4.2006 of the 2nd respondent extending the benefit of revised UGC Pay Scales to the Principal and lecturers of the educational institution run by the 4th respondent-temple was not set-aside by order Annexure-G in W.P.No.14196/2006. In fact the rights of the petitioners arraigned as respondents 7 and 14 in the said writ petition stood intact without being disturbed, so as to entitle the petitioners to the revised UGC Pay scale. The learned Single Judge having noticed the fact that the petitioners arraigned as respondents 7 and 14 did not seek or make a representation for change of Pay Scales from revised UGC to that of State Govt. pay scale, refrained from directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the other lecturers for change of the pay scales from revised UGC to State Govt. The direction issued by the learned Single 20 Judge was to consider the representation of all other lecturers for change of pay scale to State Govt. pay scale and therefore, the order withdrawing the earlier order dated:05.04.2006 extending the benefit of revision of UGC pay scales to the petitioners, without notice, tantamounts to violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, is unsustainable.
6. The representation Annexure-H of the petitioners was for payment of the salaries in terms of the revised UGC pay scale together with consequential monetary benefits and therefore, that representation could not be treated as a representation for change of pay scale from revised UGC to State Govt., disentitling the 2nd respondent to recall the order dt.5.4.2008 extending the revised UGC Pay Scale to the petitioners.
7. In the light of the specific direction issued by this court in the order Annexure-G, the 2nd respondent was not justified in recalling the order dated:5.4.2006 granting approval to extend the benefit of revised UGC pay scale insofar as the petitioners are concerned."21
28. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Endowment Commissioner by his order dated 12.12.2009 recalled his earlier order dated 15.03.2008 extending only the State Government pay scales and restored his earlier order dated 05.04.2006 by which revised UGC pay scales had been extended from 01.11.2002.
29. This order of the Endowment Commissioner was not challenged by the Institution.
30. This was, however, challenged in the year 2010 by Sri Vasudeva Asaranna and Sri Srihari Narayanadasa Asaranna, who claimed to be hereditary Archaks, in W.P.Nos.8044-8045/2010.
31. Nearly nine years after passing of the order by the Endowment Commissioner, one person claiming to be the hereditary Trustee filed W.P.No.10964/2018 on behalf of the Institution i.e., Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple.
22
32. These writ petitions were clubbed together and one of the main contentions advanced by the lecturers were that the writ petitioners therein had no locus standi to file the said writ petitions questioning grant of service benefits. The lecturers also contended that their entitlement to revised UGC pay scales could not be called in question since the Institution had recommended it and the Endowment Commissioner being the competent authority had also approved the same.
33. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the writ petitions could not be rejected on the ground that petitioners had no locus standi and on delay. The learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the Government itself had opined that UGC pay scales could not be granted to the lecturers and therefore, the Endowment Commissioner could not have exceeded his jurisdiction in 23 passing a decision contrary to the decision of the Government. The learned Single Judge accordingly allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the order of the Endowment Commissioner by which revised UGC pay scales were extended to the appellants.
34. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which is impugned in these writ appeals by the two lecturers to whom the revised UGC pay scales had been extended.
35. Sri K.Govindraj and Sri Kamath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the writ petitioners could not have maintained the writ petitions since the orders impugned in the writ petitions were service benefits granted to the employees. They contended that two Archaks of the temple did not possess the locus to challenge the decision taken by the Managing Committee and the Endowment Commissioner 24 regarding grant of service benefits to the employees of a Institution being run by the Temple.
36. They also contended that the writ petition filed nearly after nine years of passing of the order by the Endowment Commissioner could not have been entertained since the writ petition was filed by a person who claimed to be a Trustee. They further submitted that the alleged Trusteeship of the writ petitioner was the subject matter of another proceedings before the Endowment Commissioner and until that proceedings ended in favour of the writ petitioner, he could not have filed W.P.No.10964/2018.
37. On merits, learned counsel for the appellants contended that it was not in dispute that the appellants were extended UGC pay scales way back in the year 1994. They contended that the Administrator had recommended to the Deputy Commissioner to extend the revised UGC pay scales in the year 2001 itself and 25 the Deputy Commissioner also had recommended extension of revised UGC pay scales in the year 2002. It is submitted that the said recommendation was set aside by the Endowment Commissioner on the technical ground that the UGC pay scales could not have been extended without prior approval of the Endowment Commissioner.
38. They contended that appellants had challenged the said order of the Endowment Commissioner and this Court while upholding the order of the Endowment Commissioner had categorically held that it was open for the lecturers to make a representation for extension of revised UGC pay scales and the lecturers on the basis of said liberty reserved in their favour had submitted a representation and sought for extension of revised UGC pay scales.
39. They submitted that the Endowment Commissioner, on consideration of the entire matter, 26 came to the conclusion that the lecturers/appellants herein were entitled for being extended the revised UGC pay scales and this order of the Endowment Commissioner was not challenged by the Institution or by the Management.
40. They further contended that the attempt by the Endowment Commissioner, subsequently, to recall the order dated 05.04.2006 extending the revised UGC pay scales and conferring only State Government pay scales was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008 and pursuant to order passed in the said writ petition, the Endowment Commissioner had passed an order upholding his earlier order of extending revised UGC pay scales. They submitted that this order of the Endowment Commissioner being based on the recommendation of the Administrator and not being opposed by the Management could not be challenged by the hereditary Archaks or by the person claiming to be a hereditary Trustee.
27
41. Sri P.S.Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners contended that the writ petitioners were the hereditary Archaks and a hereditary Trustee and they possessed sufficient locus to maintain the writ petitions since they were vitally interested in the affairs of the Temple. Learned senior counsel also submitted that extension of UGC pay scales to the lecturers was without any factual basis.
42. He submitted that the Institution was under
no legal obligation to extend either UGC pay scales or the revised UGC pay scales. He submitted that the Institution was admittedly paying the State Government pay scales to the lecturers and the lecturers could not therefore be aggrieved by non-extension of UGC pay scales. He submitted that UGC pay scales could be extended only on the basis of some legal right and since the lecturers had no legal right to claim UGC pay scales, the decision of the learned Single Judge could not be interfered with.28
43. We have considered the respective submissions of learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.
44. The only question that arises for consideration in these writ appeals is:
Whether the lecturers/appellants would be entitled for extension of revised UGC pay scales?
What order?
45. Before going into the merits of the matter, we wish to state that we are consciously not going into the question as to whether hereditary Archaks and an alleged hereditary Trustee have locus standi to question the orders granting certain benefits to the employees of the Institution and we are deciding the entitlement of the appellants on merits so as to give the matter a rest. Hence, nothing stated in our order shall be construed as 29 accepting the status of the writ petitioners as either hereditary Archaks or as the alleged hereditary Trustee.
46. Firstly, as far as the entitlement of the appellants to UGC pay scales in concerned, in light of the clear finding recorded by this Court in W.P.No.46833/2004 connected with W.P.No.48831/2004 that Institution though under no obligation to extend the UGC pay scales had extended UGC pay scales in the year 1994, it cannot now be in dispute that the lecturers had in fact been extended UGC pay scales way back in the year 1994 itself.
47. It is also not in dispute that revised UGC pay scales were extended to them on the basis of an order of the Deputy Commissioner. This order of the Deputy Commissioner, however, had been held to be illegal by the Endowment Commissioner only on the ground that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed without prior approval of the Endowment Commissioner. 30
48. This Court in W.P.No.46833/2004 while upholding the order of the Endowment Commissioner clearly and categorically stated that it was always open for the lecturers to approach the appropriate authorities seeking for extension of revised UGC pay scales and if the lecturers obtained such an approval, they would be entitled to revised UGC pay scales.
49. This Court also noticed that the Administrator of the Temple had in fact recommended for extension of revised UGC pay scales and it is only because prior approval of the Endowment Commissioner was not obtained, the extension of revised UGC pay scales could not be granted to them.
50. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a representation was submitted by the lecturers and this representation found favour with the Endowment Commissioner and an order was passed extending the revised UGC pay scales. 31
51. Thus, the technical requirement, as pointed out by this Court, of obtaining prior approval of the Endowment Commissioner was satisfied by the passing of an order by the Endowment Commissioner on 05.04.2006.
52. In light of the fact that the Administrator of the Temple recommended extension of revised UGC pay scales and the Endowment Commissioner had granted prior approval for this extension, it is clear that the appellants became entitled to the revised UGC pay scales.
53. This order of prior approval granted by the Endowment Commissioner was affirmed by the Government despite the representations submitted by the Institution. The Government, by its communication dated 28.07.2006 categorically directed the Administrator of the Temple to implement the order of the Endowment Commissioner dated 05.04.2006. The 32 order dated 28.07.2006 makes it clear that the Government also took the view that the appellants were entitled to the revised UGC pay scales.
54. Admittedly, the order of the Government dated 28.7.2006, directing implementation of the order of the Endowment Commissioner dated 05.04.2006 extending revised UGC pay scales, was not challenged by the Institution at all and had thus attained finality.
55. The order of the Endowment Commissioner and its affirmation by the Government was challenged only by a devotee in W.P.No.14196/2006.
56. However, in the said writ petition, the decision of the Endowment Commissioner and its affirmation by the Government was not disturbed and the only point considered in the said writ petition was that the Endowment Commissioner was required to consider modifying his order in view of the fact that 33 certain lecturers had given up their claim for the revised UGC pay scales.
57. The Endowment Commissioner, instead of confining the extension of revised UGC pay scales only to those lecturers who had not withdrawn their claim, proceeded to pass an order extending the State Government pay scales to all the lecturers and thereby reversing his earlier order extending the revised UGC pay scales to all the lecturers.
58. Admittedly, this order of the Endowment Commissioner was set at naught by this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008 at the instance of the appellants herein and this order passed was not at all challenged by the Institution. Thus, the extension of revised UGC pay scales, insofar as the Institution was concerned, became final on the basis of the order passed in W.P.No.6605/2008 by which the order of the Endowment 34 Commissioner to extend only the State Government pay scales was set aside.
59. The Endowment Commissioner, pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.6605/2008, proceeded to extend the revised UGC pay scales to the appellants alone since they were the only lecturers who had not given up their claim.
60. In other words, the Endowment Commissioner restored his earlier order dated 05.04.2006 extending the revised UGC pay scales, by recalling the order passed on 15.03.2008, by which he had extended only the State Government pay scales. This order was based on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008.
61. The order of this Court passed in WP 6605/2008 and the subsequent order of Endowment Commissioner restoring the extension of the revised UGC pay scales was accepted by the Institution. Thus, the entitlement of the appellants to the revised UGC pay 35 scales became final and conclusive as far as the institution was concerned.
62. Since the Institution had accepted the order of the Endowment Commissioner and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008, in our view, the challenge made by two hereditary Archaks and a Trustee, to the order of the Endowment Commissioner passed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008 cannot be sustained.
63. Be that as it may. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the Government had opined that the appellants were not entitled to revised UGC pay scales. This observation is obviously not correct.
64. As narrated above, the Endowment Commissioner granted prior approval for extension of revised UGC pay scales and as the Administrator of the Temple had himself recommended for extension of 36 revised UGC pay scales, the appellants would thus legally be entitled to the said benefit.
65. Further more, after the passing of the order by the Endowment Commissioner, certain representations were submitted to the Government by the Administrator and the Government by its communication dated 28.07.2006 confirmed the prior approval granted by the Endowment Commissioner and directed its implementation i.e., the extension of the revised UGC pay scales.
66. In light of this direction of the Government dated 28.07.2006, as evidenced by Annexure-T to W.P.Nos.8044-8045/2010, the decision of the learned Single Judge that the State Government had opined that the appellants were not entitled for revised UGC pay scales is incorrect and cannot be sustained.
67. It cannot be in dispute that the Government had itself affirmed the prior approval granted by the 37 Endowment Commissioner for extension of revised UGC pay scales by its order dated 28.7.2006. Further, this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008 set at naught the subsequent decision of the Endowment Commissioner dated 15.03.2008 extending only State pay scales and this order has become final in so far as the institution is concerned.
68. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP.No.6605/2008, the Endowment Commissioner also proceeded to restore his order dated 05.04.2006 by which he had extended the revised UGC pay scales to the appellants. In light of these indisputable facts, the appellants, in our view, would be legally entitled for extension of the revised UGC pay scales.
69. We are, therefore, of the view that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in coming to the conclusion that the appellants were not entitled for extension of revised UGC pay scales cannot be accepted. 38 We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petitions.
70. As a consequence, we hold that the appellants would be entitled for extension of revised UGC pay scales and direct that the benefits that have accrued to them pursuant to the order of the Endowments Commissioner dated 05.04.2006 be given to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Writ Appeals are accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PKS