Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrashekar D P vs The Government Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2017
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NOS.61721-61731 OF 2016 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR D P
S/O MUNIYAPPA D P
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC,
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATTA,
BENGALURU-560 083
2. SRI VEERABHADRAPPA H
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083
3. SMT VASANTHALAKSHMI A S
W/O B MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
-2-
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083
4. KUM SUVARNA M
D/O MADHU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083
5. SMT VIJALAKSHMI R
W/O RAGHAVENDRA V S
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083
6. SRI KARABASAPPA B MADIVALAR
S/O BHOJAPPA MADIVALAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083
-3-
7. SMT SUJATA
D/O BASAVANNI B K
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083
8. SMT VEENA M
D/O MAHADEVAPPA M
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083
9. SRI SHANKAR BABU S
S/O N SHIVALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083
10. SMT SARASWATHI N
D/O VISHWANATHA N
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
-4-
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083
11. SMT VIDYA K V
W/O NAGARAJA RAO Y K
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
GENERAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA,
BANNERGHATA
BENGALURU-560 083 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. 1.THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
THANTHRIKA BHAVAN,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL
SRI VENKATESHWARA POLYTECHNIC
JANGAL PALYA, BANNERGHATA,
BENGALURU-560 083 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI E.R.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
R3 SERVED)
-5-
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO GRANT
PROMOTION IN GRANTING PAYBAND-IV SCALE TO THE
PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR
ENTITLEMENT AS STATED DATED 6.1.2012 AND IN
ORDER DATED 5.4.2012 UNDER ANNEX-A AND A1
RESPECTIVELY RELAXED TO THE PETITIONER NOS.1
TO 10 AND ANNEX-D ISSUED BY R-1 AND
RECOMMENDED BY R-3 AND IN GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 20.03.2012 IN SO FAR PETITIONER NO.1 IS
CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned Addl. Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate.
3. The petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-
-6-"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant promotion in granting Payband-IV scale to the petitioners from the date of their entitlement as stated in No.ED.450.TPE.2011 dt.6.1.12 and in order no.ED 82 TPE 2012 dated 05.4.2012 under Annexures - A and A1 respectively related to the petitioner nos.1 to 10; and annexure 'D' issued by 1st respondent and recommended by 3rd respondent and in government order No.Ed-59 TPE 2012 dated 20.03.2012 in so far petitioner No.11 is concerned.
(b) Grant any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant to the petitioners in the circumstances of the case.."
4. The point involved in the present writ petitions have already been considered by this Court and orders -7- have been passed. The order dated 23.02.2017 made in W.P.Nos.6380-6404/2017 reads as follows:
"4. The learned Addl. Government Advocate would submit that the reliefs sought for in these writ petitions are infructuous on account of the fact that the provisions of the Act has already been struck down by this court in W.P. Nos.112957-113040/2014 and W.P. Nos.113041-113050/2014 whereby this Court has passed the following:-
"(i) "A writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to pay arrears of salary and other emoluments as per revised pay scale to which the petitioners would be entitled to for the period 01.01.2006 to 23.12.2009 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on failure to make such payment petitioners would be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. -8-
(ii) It is needless to state that on the request made by the State Government after payment for releasing 80% of the contribution payable by the Central Government and on such request being received within three months thereof, the Central Government shall release the said amount as per the provisions of the scheme."
5. Further, this court by its order in W.P. No.21216/2014 and connected petitions was also pleased to strike down the said provision and in that view extended the benefits to the petitioners therein. The same was taken note of and followed by this court in W.P. No.108588-108604/2015 dated 09.09.2015 wherein this court has passed the following:-
"i) The writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) Respondent State shall continue to pay salary or pension as the case may be, to -9- petitioners and similarly placed persons as was being paid pursuant to its earlier orders or in other words, as it was being paid prior to impugned enactment.
OR The respondent-State shall comply with the directions already issued by this Court extending the monetary benefits and treating the petitioners working in Private Aided Educational Institutions on par with the employees working in Government Institutions.
(iii) In the event of respondent-State having recovered any amount/s pursuant to the impugned enactment, same is hereby ordered to be refunded to the respective petitioner/s by the State expeditiously, at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
- 10 -
(iv) The respondent-State is directed to implement the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions cited supra and in these writ petitions, as expeditiously as possible."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that despite the request, the respondent authority had failed to refund the same as ordered by this court. It is not in dispute that the said provision has been struck down and the same has been confirmed by the appellate court and the said order was appealed in the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has also confirmed the same. The said law laid down by this court having become final, it was incumbent upon the respondents to act in compliance with the directions of this Court. Hence in view of the above, the petitioners herein would be entitled to the similar benefits of the directions issued by this court herein supra noted. It is open for the petitioners to submit a representation to the concerned authority/respondent No.3 who shall examine the same and dispose of the
- 11 -
same in the light of the observations made by this court in W.P. Nos.108588-108604/2015 dated 09.09.2015 and W.P. Nos.112957- 113040/14 and W.P. No.21216/2014 and extend the benefit to the petitioners if they are similarly situated.
These Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of."
5. Hence, following the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the present writ petitions are also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ