Karnataka High Court
Smt. H M Bharathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23°° DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. BEFORE : THE HON'BLE MR.SUSTICE ANAND BYKAREDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23124/20i1 (S-RES) OG Between : : | Smit. H.M. Bharathi W/o B.R. Lakshman Aged about 41 years Working as Lecturer - Sheshadripuram Event ing Degree College _ sheshadripuram a Bangalore- 560020, Se ..Petitioner (By Sri M.S. Bhagwat & DB. Pa ramesh, Advs.,) Ana: | Pe i. The State of Karnataka . Department of Higher. Education ms Rep by its Principal Secretary 'M.S. Guilding. - Bangal ore- 550061. "2. The Commissioner Department of Collegiate Education Shes hadri Road, Bangalore-01. : The 'Joirit Director 7 "Department of Collegiate Education Regional Office, Bangalore. , ae : oo Pea 4. The Sheshadripuram Education Trust Rep by its Secretary, Sheshadripuram Bangalore-560020. 5. The Principal Sheshadripuram Evening Degree College Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-20. 7 . Respondents
(By Smt. Manjula R. Kamadolli, HCGP., for RL to R2) = This Writ Petition is filed under "Articles 296 & 227 Of the Constitution of indi la praying to direct the. respondents to extend the UGC pay-scale (Seni or grade scale, selection grade scale) as revised from time to t ime with. effect from the due date and pay the. arrears forthwi th, This Writ Pet tion. coming en for. prelimi inary hearing in 'B' group this day, the Court made tne 3 roll lowing :
@. ORD RDER R is the case , of the ; peti itioner that she was working as Lecturer in History in the college run by the fourth respondent. The. college i run by the fourth respondent was admitted 'to yahibate in the year 1995. The petitioner's "oname was sent afong with other staff for salary grant and . "thatwas diily approved. However, the appointment of the "petitioner was not been approved. Therefore, the petitioner "approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in CA W.P.NO.43796/2011 seeking a direction to the concerrigd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner 'to a the post of Lecturer. That petition was disposed of on 1.1.2002, with a direction to consider the "case "af "the .
petitioner for approval. However, that was rejected by the. second respondent-Commissioner, Department oF Cottegiate Education, on the ground that the" poli icy of reservation was olated by the management, by fs. order dated 7.2.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a veer petition before the first respondent, "wich. was 7 lowe d and the other respondents. were. dilecte d to. extend all consequential benefits by"an ; order. dated 22,8 5.2004, Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to admit her post for salary grant in vermis of the above order. There was no order pas sed by me "respondents. Hence, the petitioner filed yet
- _ ano ther writ pa etiton W.P.No.8076/2007. That petition was : di sposed "of wi ith a direction to implement the order dated : 22. 5. 2004, passed | in the revision petition. By an order dated 28.4 12008, the petitioner was given a salary grant with effect ae from 2.7.1993, but denying the UGC pay scale. The ON Government of Karnataka has passed an executive order, fan 15.11.2009, extending the UGC pay scales to Lecturers in aided colleges with effect from 1.1.1996. This has-been implernented all over the State of Karnataxa.. Al "the lecturers employed by the 4°" respondent are receiving the. UGC pay scale. All part-time lecturers in the office of the fourth respondent and also the fifth respondent are-receiving the said pay scales. By ati order dated "17.3.2011, the second respondent. has. extended the UGC-pay scale to 5 lecturers employéd -by-the fourth respondent. In spite of several representations'of the petitioner, the said benefit has not been extended to her. The petitioner has also made an appeal before the committee constituted by the fourth respondent for grant.of UGC pay scale that has gone unheard. Being aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is oo. filed.
"2, It is. snexplicable that the petitioner has been denied "the UGC pay scale and if there is any reason for such denial, "the same has not been made known to the petitioner. a co { fat i} Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for extension of the UGC pay scale (Seniér » Grade Scale, Selection Grade Scale) as revised from time to. time with effect from the due date and te pay the arrears forthwith, and if the petitioner for any reason s not entiticd. to such benefit, the respondents are 'directed te intimate'the reasons thereof to the petitioner. . The respondents shall do s0 a5 expeditiously as possible. in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a 'certified copy of this order.
The Writ petition is. disposed of accordingly. The learned Government. Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from this day, Sd 4 os, Fale f , . asad