Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jairam Dole vs Secretary For Higher Education on 25 April, 2016
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION NOS.57157-57168 OF 2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI JAIRAM DOLE
S/O. SANGARAM DOLE
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER
ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTATION &
CONTROL ENGINEERING.
2. SMT. SUJATHA H.K.
W/O. SURESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN INFORMATION SCIENCE.
3. SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA H.M.
W/O. UVARAJ G.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN I & CE.
4. SMT. H. T. MANJULA
W/O. MANJUNATH KOLI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN INFORMATION SCIENCE.
5. SRI S. RAJASHEKARA REDDY
S/O. SOMASHEKARA REDDY S.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING.
6. SRI T. EKANTHA
S/O. N. THIPPARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN PHYSICS.
2
7. SRI H. K. VIJAY
S/O. H. V. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER
AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING.
8. SRI M. KUMARA SWAMY
S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY K. C.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER
AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING.
9. SMT. PUSHPA T.
D/O. THIPPESWAMY M. H.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
COMPUTER SCIENCE.
10. SMT. MENAKA H. V.
D/O. LATE H. S. VIJAYARUDRASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN ENGLISH.
11. SRI RAJASHEKARA MURTHY H. M.
S/O. MADAIAH H. M.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING.
12. SRI SIDDANAGOUDA Y. H.
S/O. LATE YALLAPPAGOUDA K. H.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING.
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE WORKING IN
P.V.P. POLYTECHNIC
MALLATHAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 056.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JANARDHANA G., ADV.)
3
AND:
1. SECRETARY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
THANTHRIKA BHAVAN
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL
P.V.P. POLYTECHNIC
DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS
MALLATHALLI
BANGALORE-560 056.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D. ASWATHAPPA, A.G.A. FOR R-1 & 2;
SRI HARISH H. V., ADV. FOR R-3)
***
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT PAYBAND-IV SCALE TO THE
PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR ENTITLEMENT AS
MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The petitioners have prayed that the benefit of judgment dated 10-7-2015 passed in Writ Petition No.21216 of 2014 by this Court in the case of DR (MS) B.K. NAIK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS should equally be extended to the petitioners. As the petitioners' case is on identical footings as the case of Dr. B.K. Naik (supra).
2. The case of the petitioners is that they have been appointed as Associate Professors, or Selection Grade Librarian on different dates in the respective colleges. While they have been paid their salaries fixed by the University Grants Commission from the date of approval of their posts, the period between the date of appointment, and date of the approval, for the said period, they have not been granted any monetary benefit. The issue whether the faculty and non-faculty members working in the college would be entitled to the University Grants 5 Commission pay for the said period was raised by a set of employees before this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos.10339 of 2014, 25447 of 2010, and Writ Appeal No.848 of 2008. All these writ petitions were allowed by this Court and the respondents were directed to include the non-grant period also for the service benefits. The issue had traveled all the way up to the Apex Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petitions and to confirm the decision of this Court passed both by the learned Single Bench and the learned Division Bench.
3. But in order to overcome the judgments of this Court, the State had enacted the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulations of pay, pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014, thereby denying the pay scale of University Grants Commission for the period mentioned above. The said Act was challenged by filing large numbers of writ petitions. The writ petitions were decided by common judgment dated 10-7-2015 6 passed in Writ Petition No.21216 of 2014 namely in the case of Dr. B.K. Naik (supra). By the said judgment, this Court had struck down the Act as unconstitutional. This Court had further directed the Government to pay salary to the petitioners therein, and to others similarly situated persons, as was being paid before the impugned enactment. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners before this Court is to extend the benefits of said judgment to them as well.
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment dated 10-7-2015 passed in the case of Dr. B.K. Naik (supra) has been challenged before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 27-11-2015 passed by the learned Division Bench is as under:
"Insofar as the in-service respondents are concerned, we record the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject, however, to the result of the writ appeals. However, they are restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of pay".7
5. According to the said order, the learned Division Bench has recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject to the result of the writ appeals.
6. Considering the fact that the learned Advocate General has made the statement before the learned Division Bench, and in the light of the judgment dated 10-7-2015 passed in the case of Dr. B.K. Naik (supra), this Court also directs the State to re-fix the pay scale payable to the petitioners. However, it should be made amply clear that the re-fixation of the pay scale would be subject to the decision of the writ appeal pending before this Court in Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015.
With this direction, these petitions are hereby disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk