Karnataka High Court
Dr Kallappa S/O Late Mahadevappa ... vs Union Of India And Others on 7 July, 2023
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6889
WP No. 103214 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 103214 OF 2022 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
DR. KALLAPPA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR OF ORGANIC
CHEMISTRY, PG DEPARTMENT OF ORGANIC CHEMUISTRY,
KARNATAK UNIVERSITY, PAVATE NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580003, R/O. NO. 39, "SUHASWATHISHREE"
BUILDING, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, CITB COLONY,
SRINAGAR, DHARWAD-580003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
Digitally
signed by
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
RAKESH S DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE & DEVELOPMENT,
HARIHAR
RAKESH Location: SHASTRI BHAVAN,
S High Court of NEW DELHI-110001.
Karnataka,
HARIHAR Dharwad
Date:
2023.07.11 2. THE SECRETARY,
11:17:18
+0530 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) BAHADURSHAH
ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI - 110002.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560001.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6889
WP No. 103214 of 2022
BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560001.
5. THE COMMISSIONER,
THE COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
6. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560001,
7. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
P.K. BLOCK, PALACE ROAD GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 009.
8. KARNATAK UNIVERSITY,
PAVATE NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580003.
9. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAVATE NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580003.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYANJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R9;
SRI. MAHESH WADEYAR, CGSC FOR R1, R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT, THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 15.10.2009 VIDE GOVERNMENT
ORDER NO. ED 37 UNE 2009(P), BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-Q
FIXING THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION AS 62 YEARS FOR
UNIVERSITIES IS INCONSISTENT AND AS AB-INITIO VOID AND IN-
OPERATIVE TO THE EXTENT OF THE REGULATIONS FRAMED BY THE
UGC WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PAY REVIEW
COMMITTEE WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HRD
ORDER VIDE NO. F.1-7/2015-U.LL(1) DATED 02.11.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J, LETTER VIDE F.NO.23-4/2017(PS) DATED 31.01.2018
ANNEXURE-L & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6889
WP No. 103214 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner, who was working as a Professor of Organic Chemistry with the 8 th respondent University, who has now retired on attaining the age of superannuation has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
"a. Declare that, the Government Order dated 15.10.2009 vide Government order No. ED 37 UNE 2009(P), Bangalore vide ANNEXURE-Q fixing the age of superannuation as 62 years for Universities is inconsistent and as ab-initio void and in-operative to the extent of the regulations framed by the UGC with the recommendations made by the pay review committee which has been accepted by the Ministry of HRD order vide No. F 1-7/2015-U (1) dated 02 11 2017 vide ANNEXURE-J, letter vide F.No.23- 4/2017(PS) dated 31.01.2018 ANNEXURE-L b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to continue the service of the Petitioner upto the age of 65 and to grant all consequential benefits and the Petitioner are entitled for retirement upto the age of 65 years and the Respondents have no power to relieve the services of the Petitioner on attaining the age of 62 years and restrain the Respondents from enforcing any age of superannuation or retirement in terms of KCSR rules -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6889 WP No. 103214 of 2022 and the Government Order dated 15.10.2009 vide Government order No. ED 37 UNE 2009(P), Bangalore vide ANNEXURE-Q. c. Direct the State Government Respondents to incorporate the age of superannuation which was applicable to all the teachers in the Universities and Colleges as provided under the UGC regulations of 2010 ANNEXURE-H and the Government also should abide by the regulations framed by the UGC, 2018 vide No. F. 1- 2/2017(EC/PS) dated 18.07.2018 vide ANNEXURE-G and extended the benefit of age of superannuation to the Petitioner.
d. Further declare that, the age of retirement of the Petitioner should be enhanced from 62 to 65 years and re-employment from 65 to 70 years as per the UGC regulations, 2018 vide No. F.1- 2/2017(EC/PS) dated 18.07.2018 vide ANNEXURE-G and in terms of the Central Government order vide F.No. 1-19/2006-U-II dated 23.03.2007 vide ANNEXURE-M, letter No. F. 3-1/94PS) (Vol.9) dated 04.04.2007 vide ANNEXURE-N and also as per the GO dated 02.11.2017 ANNEXURE-J, 31 D 2018 vide ANNEXURE- L issued by the Ministry of Higher Education and also as per UGC regulations 2018 vide ANNEXURE-G. -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6889 WP No. 103214 of 2022 e. Declare that, the age of retirement provided by the state government is impliedly repealed and taken away and the age of consequential benefits and the Petitioner is entitled for retirement upto the age of 65 years and the Respondents have no power to relieve the services of the Petitioner on attaining the age of 62 years and restrain the Respondents from enforcing any age of superannuation or retirement in terms of KCSR rules and the GO dated 15.10.2009 ANNEXURE-Q."
2. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 and 9 University submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and accordingly, he retired with effect from 31.08.2022. He also submits that the question involved in this writ petition was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100198/2022 connected with W.P. No.101937/2022 disposed of on 01.06.2022 and it has been held that the request for continuing the services of the employee beyond the period of 62 years has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.8 and 9.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6889 WP No. 103214 of 2022 Under the circumstances, this writ petition is also required to be disposed of in terms of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100198/2022 connected with W.P. No.101937/2022 disposed of on 01.06.2022. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh/Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45