Smt M M Uma Bai W/O Subramani 55 Years vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt M M Uma Bai W/O Subramani 55 Years vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2008

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

I

IN THE HEGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATE!) THIS THE 23120 DAY OF JULY, 2OQ8OOOS._k

BEFORE

THE HONSLE MR. JUSTICE AJYF.J-.¢fUNO'AL_A O

WRIT PETITION NO 36;'*$36:_OFj 29033)   ' 

BEIWEEN:

1

SMT M M UMA BAI W/O"'OSUBRAMA_N"I 55 YEARS
WORKING AS ASST MISTRESS. HMT ENGLISH
PRIMARY SOHO()L-msgfr CO'LC)I\¥¥_

BANGALORE 31 AND R--,!_  NOQ84;   
CHOKKASANDRA OASARAPHALL1  .. 
BANGALO4R'E.._57    '    I  

Pa G1RIJAb1BA¥'W/.0'-A LAKSHMIPATY

50=.mARS V¥C>Ri<IN{?:"A_S ASST MISTRESS
HMT__EN_GLISH APREMARY SCHOOL HMT COLONY
BANGALORE-_31._vAND R/O NO 375,

:B'MA1N ROAD, 10TH 13 MAIN ROAD,

  .....

O' 11 O'A3:NAM%MA??rHOMAS W/O GEORGE M K 55 YEARS A WOIGGNG AS ASST MISTRESS HMT ENGLISH "-«4._PR_5!iviARY SCHOOL mvrr COLONY B.AN_GALORE 31 AND R/() NO 53, NARAYANAPPA BLOCK R31'. NAGAR 'EANGALORE 32 HGAYATHRI w/O J RAJARAMAN 47 YEARS WORKING AS ASST MISTRESS HM'? ENGLISH PRIMARY SCHOOL HIVIT COLONY BANGALORE 31 AND R/O NO 365, 7TH CROSS C.'F. BED AREA BANASHANKARI I STAGE, BANGALORE 70 MICHAEL O A W/() M JAIRAJ .

46 YEARS WORKING AS ASST MISTRESS. Z G HMT ENGLISH PREMARY SCHOOL BANGALORE 31 AND R/O NO 30I*.2,« OUT.;I~IQ{;!S_E",--~' 8TH MAIN MAT}-IIKERE Ex'z'ENS:ON * " A BANGALORE 54 O ASMATHBANU W/O NISAR 'AHAMED 4.1_"YEiARS WORKING AS ASST MISTRESS S _ e HMT ENGLISH PR.¥MARYv~SCHOOL.HMT COLONY BANGALORE 1 AND I~'2/ Q 1~1M':"S POST BANGALORE 31 O S SHEVARUDRAMMAIAASV'§KIfO.:SI;1IV1§Li:?i;i}AIAH 48 YEARS W0RI{IN_G{AS11SASS'I'.MIS'Z{'RESS HMT 13:15: Gi,.iS:>i* I¥RIMj;§I§i'._Sf$H>0.0L HM'? COLONY BANGALOREVi7'fVAN:D»1§,'OOHM'f E?S HMT POST BAN_GALQR*E3';31"~ S MALLS{ARJUNAi;AH'SjO K SIDDAPPA 59 YEARS RETIRED HEAD MAS'rER §%_§M'i'uENGLIS_H PREMARY SCHOOL HMT COLONY ' _ 1""AND R/ O HIG 168 B BLOCK ' 2 ,V PHAS.E,"»II B CROSS NAGARJUNE CONSTRUC S V TEON NEW TOWN' . "BAN'G}1_l.__()~;RE 64 N.AG--AR;§THANAMMA G we K SRINIVASA MURTHY 48 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MISTRESS S .SIi~IM'IV'"ENGLISH PRIMARY SCHOOL HM'? COLONY " . BANGALORE 31 AND R/O NO 169, BHUVANESWA "RI NAGAR T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE 57 JAYAVANTI-II CHRISTOPHER W/O A EDWIN CHRISTOPHER 49 YEARS WORKING AS ASST MISTRESS HMT ENGLISH PRIMARY SCHOOL HM'? COLONY BANGALORE 31 AND R/O NO 1660, Vi MAIN ROAD, K.S.'I'. BANGALORE 60 % (By SR1 M. NARAYANA BHAT, M ' M/S SUBBARAO 35 CO; ADV. ) 4' AND:

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.

REP BY yrs SECY «R DEPARTMENT OF"EDUC;ATIOI~I f M.S. BUILDING 'E = BANGALORE 1 2 HMT EMBLQY1?3ESEE:D[_f1'{',ATI{}NV O SOCIE'I'yi(A REOO SOCIE'I'Y}v ' %%%%% "

REOD :UN'I3ER *:*HE~.EOOII:T1ER REGISTRATION ACT %RER%Ba*'.irHE psEOx* H_MT}COLONY Hm' PO-'.;§'IO"'VB;%!N1:VGAE..::{i)f2b3 3: 3 HINDUSTAN'--M"ACHi?§E TOOLS LTD REP BY" -THEV(3}~I1»:_IRIJiAN CORPORATE OFFICE »,I_§IN£'F. BHAV-AN BELLARY ROAD '-BANGALORE A O'_1'RE.OERERAL MAANGER {TECHNICAL}

-- RINWJSTEN MACHINE TOOLS LTD., __cOMMO.R SERVICES DIVISION HM? 1903'!' x T BANGALORE 31 RESPONDENTS.

O 1 {E52 Sri SHASHIDHAR KARAMADE, A.G.A. FOR R1; "SRIT RAJARAM, ADV. EOR R2. .) T HIS WP FILEO UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANN.H, TO THE EXTENT PETYFIONERS ARE AGGRIEVED _ AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE or? ARTICLE :4, is OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. I S , DIRECT R»-2 To 4 To IMPLEMENT_.E2U:£;EV 'Sf 01:' KARNATARA PRIVATE EDUCATION'"(E)ISCiIPLINE', CO.}'*~2T1?OLj * AND APPEAL) RULES, 1973 ARI} FUR'1":HER.EXT.F3ND.:,THE PAY SCALES OFFERED IN THE GREER OF APPQIRTMENT VIDE ANNE SERIES AS REVISED ERQM TIME 1To TIME. T' I DIRECT THE RESPONDENT To RAY "ARREARS To THE PETPFIONERS AND GRANT'FYITMEN'I',"--.AF{REARS OF SALARY AND ALL OTHER 1fEEisIEIr1*i'.S'~»IALoNG WITH THE INTEREST ON THE AEo_'v'Ei-T1~;I0NEi?,Is»AI~II) TIME BOUND INCREMENTS AND IN'ifER_ES'i'.O,N'"THE-LAii?REARS AT THE RATE OF 18°/3 PER"-ANi§UM,:'V.«: I THIS " *C}QIv'£.INi} Toisif» EQR HEARING THIS om', THE CQURSVMAEETETIRE EOLLOWIGN: ~...........;

The to succeed on the following A "A113-.i;hei' Qeﬁﬁonefs are or were at the relevant point of teachers. Respondent No.8 is a retired Hee.ci._ end petitioner~9 is 'working as Ayah in the by respondent--2. Sufﬁce it to say that all the were working ever since their appointments. The 'T 'apfjoirimient letters of some of the petitioners are made avaiiable at Annexure---C series. Suffice it to say that '(beg I 9/5' petitioners were appointed in the pay scale oiji plus other usual aiiowances which are in HRA, CCA etc. They were on probation 1 year. AB the petitioners are worldng (J claim is lodged by the sang tnay the paid saiary on par Withtiie run by the Government. It was filed before this court for V. court declined to entertain ground that there is an alterrzatge the petitioners to ﬁle a petition Hence, a petition is ﬁled under_sect:ion" 1' of tiie Karnataka Education Act. The first x V'I*es&pondent "*p1:1rsuant'i to its order at Annexure-H has tiieciined the petition on the ground that no compe_lIing~ reasons are forth coming to show that the " 'A"-._;i_3etitione1*si salary is to be paid on par with the teachers empiojgted in the Government schools. Another reason given ':'_4'b§,r...;the ﬁrst respondent is that the financial status of "respondents 2 to 4 is not satisfactory and hence they cannot be compelled to pay the salary on par with tine} PT Mr. Rajaram, learned counsel 'for respondents 2 to 4 supports the impugzed submits that the payments are 7.

funds which is raised by donations... A:s1rlJscr'tEpticvt1$, A from fees and from Government;e4'...:Hence to the ﬁnancial constraints of 3 and 4 bailing out respondent-é does not

6. Indeed. tit" for this court to go into the merits of the say that the impugned order at Axmextare-Ha afany reasons. Indeed, a speciﬁc edd.L¢c;1:emiorlt raised the petitioners to the effect that Rules the teachers of private educational Z i_nstitution.s ' aired required to be treated on par with the H M ; ."teV;iche;*s Vernpleyed in the Government schools. What 'to have Weighed with respondent-1 is the ﬁnancial Vt of the respondent in declining to grant the relief. any order passed by the quasimjudicial authority is required to be backed by reasons. Indeed, rule 5 has new J been taken into consideration notwithstanding 'V-that such a contention was raised. In fact, the 4' Apex Court though Cited has not been bearing. Without stating as to tiledtd¢¢lls1§ﬁVl isftllapt i applicable, the order passed though cited by the note of.

Indeed it is to he noticed' case of Steel Authority of V' VISL Employees Assoeiationj V Shimoga and others, I.L.R. 2004 a£"»:::ll'f}f't')Ez:;:'~Vxegg.1§,\i1eHeeling mm the doctrine of equal pray for has ruled that the teachers emp oj:-ed i114R'a._:V;31'ix%ate"- itistitution are to he treated on par 'othe"teaehers oftlie Government schools. 2 _ 7. A"-«..Haj;i1:g.7~~'regard to the fact that the order passed by lE'€Sp{)I1tE1€Ilt-I is not 3 speaking order, that one ground is e._su:fI'ieient to set at naught the order and remit the matter to 'T " the first respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner A. afresh in the light of the observations made in the course of I , n this order and with reference to the deeisioiilv abeve.

8. Consequently, the The petition is 'rivsxqiuxvashed. The matter is remitted to first respondent shal} to the petitioners Within bf receipt of the copy of this order. """

Rule méi»<§e"abSol_{1'ee;. » ~ .. V' "

A' ..... .. « Sd/,1 Judge,

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court