Karnataka High Court
Sri V Sanjeeva vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2019
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.31232 OF 2013 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
SRI.V.SANJEEVA
S/O. LATE SHIVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS LIBRARIAN
APS COMMERCE COLLEGE
N.R.COLONY
BANGALORE-560 019
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.S.BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(COLLEGE EDUCATION)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001
2. COMMISSIONER OF CEOLLEGEATE
EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
3. ACHARAYA PATHASHALA EDUCATION TRUST
N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE-560 019
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. ACHARAYA PATHASHALA COMMERCE
COLLEGE
N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE-560 019
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI.SREEDHAR N.HEGDE, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2
SRI.S.W.ARNATTI, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4- ABSENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED:14.02.2013 ISSUE BY R2
VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R2 TO
PROMOTE AND APPROVE THE PROMOTION OF THE
PETITIONER W.E.F. 13.03.2003 AND EXTEND THE PAY SCALE
APPLICABLE TO THE POST OF LIBRARIAN W.E.F. 13.03.2003
A/W ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of endorsement dated 14.2.2013, by which his grievance is relating to retrospective promotion to the cadre of Librarian from 17.8.2010 to 13.3.2003 has been turned down with reference to policy decision of the State that there was an economy measure in terms of order dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure-U).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner while working as an Assistant Librarian he was promoted on 13.3.2003 by the 3rd respondent- Management. Management had passed a resolution on 7.7.2009 for sending a proposal of the petitioner's 3 promotion to the post of Librarian. Pursuant to the resolution, petitioner's promotion was approved by the Director of Collegiate Education on 17.8.2010. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is entitled to promotion to the cadre of Librarian w.e.f. 13.3.2003.
3. In support of his contention, he has relied on two decisions namely Chandigarh Administrative & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Rajni Vali & Ors. reported in 2000(1) Supreme 135 and decision of this Court in W.P. No.17782/1999 in the case of Southern Asia Education Society Vs. The Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Bidar (Annexure-X) dated 29.10.2004 to contend that State Government cannot take the contention of financial difficulties of State.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out from para No.7 of the objections reasons for not extending the relief sought by the petitioner is with reference to the policy decision of the Government (Annexure-U) dated 1.3.2001. It was 4 also contended that petitioner has not questioned the validity of Government Order 1.3.2001, so as to claim the relief of retrospective promotion from the date on which the Management promoted him. The cited decisions have no assistance to the petitioner in view of not questioning the validity of the Government order dated 1.3.2001.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Question for consideration in the present petition is 'whether petitioner is entitled to retrospective promotion to the cadre of Librarian from 13.3.2003 instead of 17.8.2010 or not?
7. Undisputed facts are that petitioner while working as Assistant Librarian, he was promoted to the post of Librarian on 13.3.2003 by the Management. Management after promoting the petitioner did not seek any approval, apparently for the reason that Government Policy (Annexure-u) dated 01.03.2001 was a hurdle seeking for approval for such promotion made by the management on 13.3.2003 to the petitioner. The 5 petitioners have not questioned the validity of 1.3.2001 Government Policy relating to reduction of grant-in-aid to aided colleges. Government Order reads as under:
¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: Er 196 AiÀÄĦ¹ 2000 (¨sÁUÀ), ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.03.2001 ¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£ À ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:
Er-196-AiÀÄĦ¹- 2000 (¨sÁUÀ) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13.02.2001£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ¥Àðr¹ SÁ¸ÀV C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ½UÉ (¥ÀzÀ« PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²PÀët PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 15gÀµÀÄÖ PÀrvÀUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß F PɼPÀ ÀAqÀ «zsÁ£ÀU¼ À À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ eÁjUÉ vÀg®À Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¤zsð À j¹zÉ.
1. ¸ÀAAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥Àz«À PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ½AzÀ ¥Àz« À ¥ÀƪÀð PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÀPÀëtªÉà ¨ÉÃ¥Àðr¹ PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ ºÀAvÀz° À è DzÉñÀU¼ À £À ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
2. ¥À¸æ ÀÄÛvÀ C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ²PÀët ¸ÀA¸ÉÜU¼ À ° À è SÁ° EgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉÆÃzsPÀ ÃÉ vÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ±Á±ÀévÀ C£ÀÄzÁ£À gÀ»vÀªÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F ºÀÄzÉÝU¼ À ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÉÃvÀ£Á£ÀÄzÁ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ±Á±Àv é ªÀ ÁV C£ÀºÀðªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸  ¯ À ÁVzÉ.
3. SÁ¸ÀV C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ²PÀët ¸ÀA¸ÉÜU¼ À °À è£À G½zÀ ¨ÉÆÃzsPÀ À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃzsPÀ ÃÉ vÀgÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ, gÁfãÁªÉÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄgÀt¢AzÀ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ vÉgª À ÁVgÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉÝU¼ À À §UÉÎ ¥Àwæ AiÉÆAzÀÄ ¥ÀPæ g À t À PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ CªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á±Àévª À ÁV C£ÀÄzÁ£À gÀ»vÀªÉAzÀÄ G½AiÀĨÉÃPÉà JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀAvÀz° À è ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. EAvÀºÀ ±Á±ÀévÀ C£ÀÄzÁ£À gÀ»vÀ ºÀÄzÉÝU¼ À £À ÀÄß DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ vÀÄA©PÉÆAqÀÄ EªÀÅUÀ¼À ªÉÃvÀ£À ¨sv À ÉåUÀ¼ÀÄ EvÁå¢UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®UÀ½AzÀ ¨sÀj¸ÀvPÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ.
8. In the absence of challenge to the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government, petitioner is not entitled to retrospective promotion to the cadre of 6 Librarian w.e.f. 13.3.2003. Further, there is no challenge to approval of promotion to the post of Librarian dated: 17.08.2010 that petitioner is entitle to retrospective promotion. That apart, management was well aware of order dated 1.3.2001 since Management did not send a proposal for approval of petitioner's promotion to the cadre of Librarian which was ordered on 13.3.2003 till 7.7.2009 the date on which resolution was passed by the Management for seeking approval of the Government in respect of petitioner's promotion to the cadre of Librarian. In this background, respondent- Department promoted the petitioner on 17.8.2010 as and when Government Order Annexure-U dated 1.3.2001 was relaxed. The contention of the petitioner that it is the duty of the State Government to meet the expenditure in respect of grant-in-aid Institution. The cited decision has no application in respect of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case like State Government has taken a policy decision on 1.3.2001 to cut down 15% of the grant-in-aid for the aided college due to financial constrain which has not 7 been questioned even to this day so as to consider that the petitioner's grievance is covered by the cited decision. Even assuming that there was a lapse on the part of the Government in not extending the benefit to the post of Librarian from 13.3.2003, it is to be noted that Management for the first time passed a resolution on 7.7.2009 and thereafter respondent -Department proceeded to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 17.8.2010. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case to seek for retrospective promotion w.e.f. 13.3.2003. The petitioner having worked in the post of Librarian at the behest of the Management, in such an event, Management has to bear the differences of salary in the post of Librarian during the intervening period from 13.3.2003 to 17.8.2010.
9. In this regard, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Management by making necessary application/representation. If the petitioner submits such representation/application, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to consider the grievance of the 8 petitioner and pass suitable order in extending difference of salary, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner's application.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE BS