Karnataka High Court
M Ratnakar Pai vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2013
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.S.Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA
WRIT PETITION Nos. 42707 to 42708/2012 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
M. Ratnakar Pai,
S/o Venkatesh Pai,
Aged about 74 years,
"Shivam" upstairs,
Kundeshwara Temple Road,
Kundapura,
Udupi District-576 101. ...Petitioner
(By Smt. Suma Kedilaya, Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Education Department,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Director of Pre-University Education,
Government of Karnataka,
18th Cross, Malleswaram,
Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Commissioner for Public Instruction,
New Public Offices,
2
Nrupatunga Road,
Bangalore-560 003.
4. The Secretary,
Finance Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-1. ...Respondents
[By Smt. S. Susheela, AGA]
...
These Writ Petitions are filed Under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the
impugned orders dated 16.2.2009 vide Annexure-A in
Application NO. 8340/2001 on the file of KAT Tribunal,
Bangalore and Order dated 9.3.2012 vide Annexure-G in
Review Petition No. 9/2011 and grant retrospective
promotion from June 1974 itself upto 30.9.1997 the date
of retirement and order payment of arrears of pay from
June 1974 till retirement deducting already paid salary
and increase in pension.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, Shylendra Kumar. J., made the
following:
ORDER
Writ Petitioner had joined the Department of Public Instructions as a Teacher way back in the year 1958 and had worked in that capacity up to the year 1968. After completing his graduation in the year 1968, he was appointed as Secondary School Assistant in that year. Further transpires that he did his M.A. in May 1974 in Political Science and Sociology and therefore, he became eligible for being promoted to the post of Lecturer. 3 Petitioner had prolonged correspondences for this and claims to have done so from the year 1975 to 1995. In spite of a clear guideline to the effect that Principals and Lecturers be appointed who have done their M.A., Post Graduation with teaching experience of 3 to 5 years, the petitioner was not given promotion. Ultimately the petitioner was constrained to file an application bearing No. 3469/1996 before the Tribunal and met with success as the Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant and pass appropriate orders within three months. It appears, the respondents passed a belated order and promoted him to the post of Lecturer as per the Government Order dated 29.6.1998 but with promotional benefits from 12.7.1993. In this view of the matter, certain contempt proceedings which were pending before the Tribunal for non-implementation of its order dated 28.1.1997 passed in application No. 3469/1996 came to be dropped reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate independently, if he is still aggrieved. 4
2. Claiming to be enabled by the observation, the petitioner again moved application No. 8340/2001 before the Tribunal after correspondence with the Department. In the application, the petitioner's contention was that he should have been given the benefit of retrospective promotion with effect from 28.8.1974 when he had acquired the Post Graduation Degree and when many of his juniors had been given such promotion but not the petitioner. The Tribunal interalia observed that the petitioner had been given promotional benefits with effect from 12.7.1993 as per the order dated 29.6.1998 on the premise that his juniors had been promoted from this date. In the background of such developments, the petitioner again coming up for claiming promotional benefits from the year 1974, is not by the principle of delay and laches as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of C. JACOB
-vs- DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & MINING AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2008 SCW 7233 applies the same to the case of the petitioner and found that there is no occasion to examine the grievance of the petitioner in the 5 application which was of a stale cause and not a live claim and therefore, dismissed the application.
3. It appears, the petitioner had sought for review of this order by filing review application No.9/2011 with some additional documents, etc., but the Tribunal found no merit in the review application and dismissed the review application also as per its order dated 9.3.2012. It is thereafter, the present writ petition questioning the original order passed in the main application No. 8340/2001 and the order on the review application dated 9.3.2012.
4. Notice had been issued to the respondents and they are represented by Smt. S. Susheela, learned Government Advocate. With the consent of Counsel for petitioner and respondents, we have heard for disposal though petitions have come up only for Preliminary Hearing.
5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Suma Kedilaya, learned Counsel very vehemently contended that the petitioner had been discriminated; that he was 6 qualified for promotion by acquiring a M.A. Degree in Political Science and Sociology way back in the year 1974 and his promotion should have been from this year as he was qualified for the same; that he should have been given his promotional benefits from the year 1974 and more so when juniors to the petitioner have been given promotion much earlier and some of them are still working as Principals in the Colleges etc., and therefore, the order does warrant interference.
6. The petitioner came to be retired from service in the year 1996. It appears it is only thereafter the petitioner had approached the Tribunal for relief. It is on the eve of his retirement that he had agitated for his cause that resulted in the order earlier passed by the Tribunal which have been noticed above and he has been given promotion with effect from 1993 as per the order dated 29.6.1998. His second application is only in the year 2001.
7. The other contention of Smt. Suma Kedilaya is that the Tribunal has committed an error in following the decision rendered in SC. JACOB -vs- DIRECTOR OF 7 GEOLOGY & MINING AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2008 SCW 7233 case which is distinct on facts.
8. The Tribunal examined the cause of the petitioner both in the main application as well as review application not on merit particularly but on the ground that it was a stale cause and not a live cause. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that he had been corresponding and making representations promptly and therefore there was delay in the petitioner approaching the Tribunal. This will not alter the situation at a belated stage. The Tribunal found no cause to examine the matter on merits. We find no error in this order and at this point of time when the petitioner had already retired from service in the year 1996. It is therefore, we find no reason for interference and the writ petitions are dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE Nsu/-