Karnataka High Court
Smt Ranjini K S vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION Nos.2205 - 2238/2014 (S - RES)
BETWEEN:
1.SMT RANJINI K S
W/O K.V.SRINIVASA PRAHU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN KANNADA
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
2.SMT. M.J.R. NIRMALA JOSEPH
W/O GEORGE THOMAS
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
3.SMT.USHA CHANDRAN
D/O K.R.CHANDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ACCOUNTANCY
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
4.SMT.SHAILAJA.K.S.
W/O N.R.SRIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2
WORKING AS LECTURER
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
5.SMT.PHILOMINA JOSEPH
W/O A.D.GEORGE
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN PHYSICS
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
6.SMT.R.KALA
D/O K.S.RAMABHADRAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
7.SMT.MARIA SELVA DAISY.A
W/O S.M.CHARLES,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ECONOMICS
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
8.SMT.MARY LATHA
W/O ANTHONY SURESH KUMAR G.J.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
3
9.YITTA UMA
W/O G.VARA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS LIBRARIAN
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
10.SISTER SOCORRINHA LOURENCO
D/O TOMAS LOURENCO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
WORKING AS CLERK-CUM-TYPIST,
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
11.SISTER PHILOMINA V.K.
D/O KOCHUVARIEED
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
12.LILLY JOSEPHINE
W/O ANTHONY SAGAYARAJ
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS LAB ATTENDER,
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
13.SRI SAGAYANATHAN.Y
S/O J.YESUDAS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
WORKING AS OFFICE ATTENDER
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
4
14.SMT.SHANTHI
D/O ASHIRVADAM,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS PEON
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
15.SMT.ERAMMA
W/O BEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS SWEEPER,
ST.ANNE'S P.U.COLLEGE,
NO.2, MILLER'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
16.SMT.LISSIAMMA LUKOSE
D/O LUKOSE THADATHIL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
17.SMT.JESSIE CHACKO
W/O M.K.BABU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
18.SMT.O.GEETHA
W/O P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN BOTANY,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
5
19.SMT.JAYASHREE DINAKAR RAO SUREGAUNKAR
D/O D.M.SUREGAUNKAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN HISTORY,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
20.SRI SURESH BABU.M
S/O N.MADHAVAN PILLAI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN PHYSICS
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
21.SMT.NIRMALA VARKEY
W/O K.C.ASHOK,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
22.SRI SURESH KUMAR K
S/O N.S.JAYADEVAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN B.S. & ACCOUNTANCY,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
23.SMT.RADHA PALANKEZHE
W/O K.M.SIVADAS
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS LECTURER IN HINDI
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
6
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
24.SMT.NJANAMBIKA.P
D/O P.CHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS CLERK-CUM-TYPIST,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
25.SMT.SHYAMALA KUMARI
W/O MADAN SUNDAR P.M.,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
26.SRI RATHNAVELU.R
S/O C RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS ATTENDAR,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
27.SMT.B.P.RATHNAMMA
W/O C.GOPINATHAN NAIR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS LAB ATTENDAR,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
28.SRI C.GOPINATHAN NAIR
S/O CHELLAPPAN NAIR.V
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
7
WORKING AS LAB ATTENDAR,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
29.SMT.E.S.LATHA
W/O LATE N.VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS LAB ATTENDAR,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
30.SRI.P.UNNIKRISHNAN
S/O LATE K.P.K. MENON
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS PEON,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
31.SRI.P MURALEEDHARAN
S/O LATE A.T.GOPALA MENON
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
WORKING AS PEON
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
32.SMT.P.SUJATHA
W/O VASUDEVAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
WORKING AS PEON
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
8
33.SRI.M.SUBRAMANIAN
S/O LATE M.KUNCHATHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS WATCHMAN,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
34.SMT LALITHA
W/O LATE RAJA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS SWEEPER,
INDIRANAGAR COMPOSITE P.U.COLLEGE
5TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri PADMANABHA R, ADV.)
AND
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2.THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 012.
3.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT
B P WADIA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004. .. RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. M S PRATHIMA, HCGP)
9
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
RECKON AND COUNT THE PAST SERVICE RENDERED
BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR
INITIAL APPOINTMENTS UP TO THE DATE OF
APPROVAL OF THEIR APPOINTMENT WITH AID
RESPECTIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXATION OF
PAY SCALE, SENIORITY, INCREMENTS INCLUDING
TBA, PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS FLOWING
THEREOF BY DISPOSING THE PRESENT PETITIONS IN
TERMS OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONORABLE COURT
MADE IN W.P. NO.37250-37254/2010 DATE
02.12.2010, W.P. NO.66892-66910/2011 DATED
19.10.2011 AND W.P. NO. 25447/2010 DISPOSED OF
BY ORDER DATED 16.08.2010 WHICH IS AFFIRMED
BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONORABLE
COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 4788/2010 DATED
22.09.2011 AND HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN
SLP (CIVIL) CC 7365/2012 DATE 02.07.2012 AND SLP
(C) 22176-22186/2010 AND CONNECTED WITH SLP
(C) NO 14870-15136/2012 DISPOSED OF ON
21.08.2013 VIDE ANNX-Z21, Z22, Z23, Z24, Z25, Z26
RESPECTIVELY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staff working in St.Anne's PU College and Indiranagar Composite PU College both at Bangalore respectively. According to them, their appointments were approved 10 by respondent No.1. While approving the appointment, a condition having been imposed that the past service rendered from the date of appointment till the appointee was admitted for salary grant will be counted only for the purpose of leave and pension and thereby denied the notional annual increments, these writ petitions were filed on 16.1.2014, to reckon and count the past service rendered by the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment up to the date of approval of their appointment with aid respectively for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority, increments, including TBA, pensionary benefits and other consequential service benefits.
2. Sri R Padmanabha, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the writ petitions filed by some of the teachers working in different institutions, seeking to reckon their services from the date of their initial appointments up to the date of approval for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority and all other 11 benefits having been allowed and the writ appeals and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government having been dismissed, as is evident from Annexures - Z11 to 16, the respondents have an obligation to extend the same benefits to the petitioners. He submitted that, since the respondent No.1 has not extended the said benefits to the petitioners, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Perused the writ record.
4. The petitioners have not made a demand with the respondents seeking to perform the legal duty. Annexure-Z10 is a legal notice and not a representation. Submission of Sri R Padmanabha to treat Annexure- Z10 as a representation made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. The demand must be in writing by the petitioners with all service particulars, so that the authority can secure the relevant records and take decision in the matter. Since the petitioners have not made distinct demand with the respondents by 12 furnishing the full service particulars, with regard to the claims made in these writ petitions, petitions filed for issue of writ of mandamus cannot be entertained.
5. In A. Prabhakara Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka and others, 1980 (1) KLJ 456, with regard to issuance of writ of mandamus to the authorities, it has been held as follows:
"9. As a rule this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will issue a Writ of mandamus to the Authorities like the 1st and 2nd respondents if they failed to discharge their duties arising out of legal obligations, in spite of a written demand. It is only when such duties are cast on the authorities and they fail to perform them, the right to seek a Writ of Mandamus arises in favour of the citizen."
6. In Sri D.L. Chowda Reddy and others vs. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Primary Education and others, ILR 2013 Kar 5085, considering the object of Writ of Mandamus and criteria for issue of Writ of Mandamus, in a case relating to the identical claim, it was held as follows: 13
"2. The object of issue of writ of mandamus is to compel performance of a legal duty. A mandamus will be issued to a person aggrieved who approaches the Court, if he makes out (i) existence of a legal right in him and a corresponding obligation on the respondent to perform a legal duty and (ii) refusal, either express or implied, by the respondent to perform such duty, in spite of a demand. Where a petition seeking mandamus is not preceded by demand for performance of a legal duty, the Court cannot entertain such a petition."
7. In SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. ETC., vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1975 SC 460, Apex Court has held as follows:
"24...... As a general rule writ of mandamus will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that, that demand was met by a refusal."
8. In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 427, Apex Court has held that while granting a 14 writ, the Court must make every effort to ensure from the averments of the writ petition, there exists proper pleadings. With regard to the writ of mandamus, it has been held as follows:
"24......In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded. Furthermore, the authority against whom mandamus is issued, should have rejected the demand earlier. Therefore, a demand and its subsequent refusal, either by words, or by conduct, are necessary to satisfy the court that the opposite party is determined to ignore the demand of the applicant with respect to the enforcement of his legal right......."
9. The ratio of the above decision was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another, (2013) 5 SCC 470.
15
10. Sri R Padmanabha, conceded that prior to filing of these writ petitions, the petitioners did not submit individual written representations to the respondents seeking to extend the service benefits on par with the relief, which the teachers working in other institutions have got by virtue of the orders passed in other cases.
11. The petitioners having not made distinct demand in writing with competent authority having the requisite authority to perform the demand and there being no opportunity for the competent authority to examine the claims and take decision in the matters, these writ petitions for issue of writ mandamus to the respondents, in view of the ratio of law in the decisions, noticed supra, cannot be entertained.
In the result, writ petitions are rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach office of the authority having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded and for extending benefits. If the 16 competent authority does not act in the matter within a reasonable period, it is open to the petitioners to seek relief, if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm.