Karnataka High Court
Sri M D Ashoka vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2023
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
WP No. 17713 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 17713 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI M D ASHOKA
SON OF DAKAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS SELECTION GRADE LECTURER
CE ENGG DEPARTMENT
SRI SAHYADRI POLYTECHNIC THRITHAHALLI
(GOVT AIDED)
THIRTHAHALLI-577432
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
Digitally ...PETITIONER
signed by
NARASIMHA (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G.,ADVOCATE)
MURTHY
VANAMALA
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
WP No. 17713 of 2022
2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL
EDUCATION
THANTHRIKA BHAVAN
PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL
SRI SAHYADRI POLYTECHNIC
THIRTHAHALLI (GOVT AIDED)
SAGAR ROAD
THIRTHAHALLI-577432
DIST SHIVAMOGGA
4. SAHYADRI POLYTECHNIC (AIDED)
(AFFILIATED TO BOARD OF TECHNICAL
EDUCATION AND APPROVED BY AICTE)
SAGAR ROAD
THIRTHAHALLI-577432
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI K K NAGARAJ
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. N.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND
R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANENXURE - C
DTD.6.1.2022 VIDE NO.DTE.09,.EST(17)2021
ISSUED BY THE R-2 TO THE EXTENT OF TAKING A
DECISION NOT TO GRANT THE 7TH REVISED
AICTE PAY SCALE TO THE PETITIONER; DIRECT
THE R-1 AND 2 TO GRANT THE 7TH REVISED
AICTE PAY SCALE TO THE PETITIONER FROM
1.4.2018 WITH FINANCIAL BENEFITS FROM
-3-
WP No. 17713 of 2022
1.4.2020 AND ALL ARREARS PAYABLE FROM THE
SAID DATE
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The question for consideration in this petition would be, as is obvious from the pleadings and the submissions by the learned counsels for the parties:
Whether there must be directions to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for grant of the Seventh Revised AICTE Pay scale.
The petitioner's case is that while similarly placed 17 others have been granted the benefit of the aforesaid Seventh Revised AICTE Pay scale, the petitioner is not extended such benefit in terms of Annexure-C only on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him.
2. Sri. Janardhana G., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner cannot dispute that disciplinary proceedings have been -4- WP No. 17713 of 2022 initiated, but that has resulted in the punishment order dated 10.04.2017, which is not given effect to because it has not been approved by the concerned. He also submits that even if the fourth respondent can justify the punishment reducing the petitioner's salary, that cannot be a reason for denying the benefit of the Seventh Revised AICTE Pay scale as, if it is ultimately held that the petitioner must indeed suffer loss of salary, there would be a consequential adjustment even if he is extended the Seventh Revised AICTE Pay scale.
3. Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits on instructions, that if the Management - the fourth respondent were to forward appropriate proposal with necessary No Objection Certificate, the petitioner's request for extending the Seventh Revised AICTE Pay scale would be considered. However, Sri. N. Shivakumar, the learned counsel for the third and -5- WP No. 17713 of 2022 the fourth respondents [the Management], submits that the petitioner has called in question the punishment order dated 10.04.2017 before the appropriate forum and until the merit of such decision is considered, the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefit of the Seventh Revised AICTE Pay scale.
4. This Court, in deciding the afore question, is not deciding on the merits of the punishment order dated 10.04.2017, which will have to be decided by the appropriate forum, given the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the question must be examined from the perspective of whether the petitioner must be denied the benefit of revised pay scale simply because he has suffered an order of loss in salary. This Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner is made to suffer loss of salary in terms of the punishment order dated 10.04.2017 and a denial of the Seventh Revised AICTE Pay scale, he -6- WP No. 17713 of 2022 would be subject to punishment that is beyond the punishment contemplated in the punishment order dated 10.04.2017. Further, as canvassed, if ultimately the punishment is upheld, there will be necessary adjustment.
5. As such, the second respondent could not have denied the benefit of Seventh Revised AICTE Pay scale on the ground that certain departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner, or because there is an order imposing penalty of denial of certain portion of the salary. In fact, it is now submitted by the State that if there is a proposal by the fourth respondent with necessary No objection, the same would be considered. In the circumstances of the case, there must be suitable directions to the fourth respondent to forward the proposal and issue necessary Certification as aforesaid, and directions to the Second respondent to consider the same to pass orders notwithstanding the pending proceedings -7- WP No. 17713 of 2022 against the punishment order but subject to just conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The petition stands disposed of directing the fourth respondent to forward the orders for grant of Seventh Revised AICTE Pay scale to the petitioner independent of either Annexure-C, which is dated 06.01.2022 or the Punishment Order, which is dated 10.04.2017, and the second respondent is directed to consider such proposal notwithstanding the aforesaid and take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law.
b) The petitioner to facilitate the same shall file a representation with the third respondent enclosing a certified copy of this order and such representation shall be -8- WP No. 17713 of 2022 filed within three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
c) The third respondent shall forward the orders in the light of the observation as aforesaid within four [4] weeks therefrom, and the second respondent shall consider the orders and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of order from the fourth respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE RB