Karnataka High Court
Dr Manjunath N Hegde vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 January, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.60552/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Dr Manjunath N Hegde
S/o Narayan Hegde
Aged About 56 Years
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering
Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology
Bengaluru - 560 056
Residing at No.396/112, 'Amma Appa'
6th Main Road, 3rd Cross
Gnanajyothinagar
Mallathhalli, Near Ullal Cross
Bengaluru - 560 056
. . . Petitioner
(By Sri. Yogesh Naik for S.G. Pandit, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary to the
Education Department
(Technical Education)
Multi Storied Building
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Director of Technical Education
Palace Road
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2
3. The Principal
Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology
Ring Road, Nagarabhavi Post
Bengaluru - 560 056.
. . . Respondents
( By Sri.E.S. Indiresh, AGA For R1 & 2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 29.02.2016 RECEIVED BY
RESPONDENTS ON 02.03.2016 AT ANNEXURE-J AND J1
AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS FOR RELEASE OF
AMOUNT DEDUCTED BY THEM FROM HIS SALARY AND
THE AMOUNT WITHHELD.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in 3rd respondent Institute on 13/7/1984 and was promoted as an Assistant Professor in the year 1995 and was further promoted to the post of Professor after completion of his Ph.D. Course in October 2009. As on date, petitioner has been working as professor in Respondent No.3-Institute in the Department of Civil Engineering.
2. Petitioner came to be deputed to pursue his Ph.D Course in the Indian Institute of Science, under Quality 3 Improvement Programme. Petitioner is being paid salary, on account of third respondent Institution, being an aided Institution. Deputation of petitioner for pursue Ph.D Course came to be granted by the appropriate Government by fixing the period of three years to complete the Course and during said period petitioner was entitled for full salary and allowances. The deputation of petitioner for a period of three years was as contemplated under Rule 6 of Appendix II-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. On completion of three years period, petitioner reported to duty on 29.7.2002 and it is not in dispute that said period of three years petitioner could not acquire his Ph.D. Course. However, subsequently, on 7.7.2009 petitioner acquired Ph.D. The On account of petitioner not having completed or acquire Ph.D within three years, issued an endorsement dated 17.1.2011 for withdrawing salary and other monetary benefits granted to petitioner for the said period. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner was before this court in WP No.14201/2011 and this court by order dated 15.11.2012 held that impugned endorsement was not 4 sustainable and as such, Writ Petition came to be allowed and endorsement dated 17.1.2011 issued to the petitioner came to be quashed. Being aggrieved by this order, State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench, which ended in its dismissal by order dated 12.2.2016 and it has been observed by the Division Bench as under:
" 6. We are of the opinion that the writ petitioner has pursued his Ph.D course in the said Institution for three years and obtained his Ph.D letter later, there could be no reason for the authorities to ask him to refund the salary and other benefits paid to him during the period of deputation. "
In the light of the finding recorded, Writ Appeal came to be dismissed and order of the learned Single Judge came to be affirmed. On such dismissal of Writ Appeal, petitioner herein submitted representations on 29.2.2016 to Respondents 1 and 2 as per Annexure-J and J1 respectively, whereunder petitioner has sought for release of the recovered/withheld salary amount. However, said representation has not been considered by the respondents. As such, petitioner is before this court seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus.
5
3. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which is also admitted by learned Government Advocate appearing for R.1 and 2 that claim or prayer of the petitioner for release of the recovered salary and release of withheld salary etc., will have to be examined by 2nd respondent. In the light of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation dated 29.2.2016, ANNEXURE -J1 submitted by the petitioner keeping in mind the order passed by this Court, copies of which has been enclosed along with said representation, expeditiously at any rate, within the outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE Psg*