Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Chandrappa Gouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2014

Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda

Bench: B. Sreenivase Gowda

                           :1:




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA

      WRIT PETITION NOS.100964-1009367/2014 (S-RES)

BETWEEN

1.    CHANDRAPPA GOUDA
      S/O. BHARAMAGOUDA
      CHANDRIKER, AGE: 46 YEARS,
      ASSISTANT TEACHER
      C.E.S. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
      HIREKERUR,
      HAVERI DIST-581 111

2.    GUDDAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA
      DODDANINGAPPANAVAR
      AGE: 42 YEARS
      ASSISTANT TEACHER
      C.E.S. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
      HIREKERUR,
      HAVERI DIST.581 111.

3.    RAJENDRA
      S/O. HANUMANA GOUDA
      BETTELLER, AGE: 42 YEARS
      ASSISTANT TEACHER
      C.E.S. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
      HIREKERUR,
      HAVERI DIST.581 111.
                           :2:




4.    HANUMANTHAPPA
      S/O. BASAPPA YAMMER
      AGE: 46 YEARS
      ASSISTANT TEACHER
      C.E.S. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
      HIREKERUR,
      HAVERI DIST.581 111.            ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. S. G. KADADAKATTI & SRI LINGESH V. KATTIMANI,
ADVS.)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
      DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND
      SECONDARY EDUCATION
      M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
      BANGALORE-560 001.

2.    THE DIRECTOR,
      SECONDARY EDUCATION
      DEPARTMENT. NRUPATUNGA
      ROAD, BANGALORE-560 003.

3.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
      DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
      HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

4.    THE HEAD MASTER
      C. E. S. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
      HIREKERUR,
      HAVERI DISTRICT-581 111. ...    RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, HCGP)


     THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
                              :3:




THE   IMPUGNED    ORDERS   DATED   17.02.2001  VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND THE OFFICIAL MEMO DATED 01.03.2001
VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY
EDUCATION     PUBLIC    INSTRUCTION     DEPARTMENT,
BANGALORE, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF
CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITIONERS SERVICE FROM THE
DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS FOR FIXATION OF
SALARY BENEFITS WITH REVISIONS FROM TIME TO TIME
INCLUDING PENSIONER BENEFITS WITH ARREARS, AS
ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ETC.

     THESE   WRIT   PETITIONS  COMING   ON   FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for State/respondents.

Although these matters are listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and its authorities, matters are disposed of finally as the same are covered by several judgments of this Court and of the Apex Court passed in such and similar cases.

2. The petitioners in these petitions who belong to teaching staff of Educational Institution run by Private :4: Management have preferred these writ petitions seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 17.02.2001 as per Annexure-C and the official memo dated 01.03.2001 as per Annexure-D issued by the 2nd respondent, in so far as it relates to denial of consideration of the petitioners service from the date of their initial appointments for fixation of salary benefits with revisions from time to time including pensionary benefits with arrears as illegal and void, and to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reckon and count the services rendered by them from the date of their initial appointment upto the date of approval of their appointment with grant-in- aid facility for the purpose of fixation of initial pay, seniority, promotion, increment and pensionary benefit and to consider their representations for extending the aforesaid benefits to them in the light of the earlier Judgments of this Court.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits, the issue involved in these petitions is fully covered by several :5: judgments of this Court and a few of such judgments are cited hereunder :

(i) W.A.Nos.848/2008 and connected cases disposed of on 3-11-2009 - PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. NAGEGOWDA AND OTHERS.
(ii) W.P.Nos. 37250-37254/2010 disposed of on 2-

12-2010 - K.C.PRAKASH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS.

(iii) W.P.Nos. 66892-66910/2011 disposed of on 19- 10-11 - A.ANANDA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State does not dispute the said fact.

5. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties are placed on record.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed with the following directions :

(i) Impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 17.02.2001 as per Annexure-C and the official memo dated 01.03.2001 as per Annexure-

D issued by the 2nd respondent, in so far as it relates to denial of consideration of the :6: petitioners service from the date of their initial appointments for fixation of salary benefits with revisions from time to time including pensionary benefits with arrears is quashed.

(ii) Writ of Mandamus is issued directing the State and its authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioners in terms of the decisions referred to supra within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii) If representation/s are not made by the petitioners, they are given liberty to make detailed representation/s in this regard within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such representations are made, the State and its authorities shall consider and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of such representation/s in the light of the decisions of this Court rendered in the aforesaid cases.

No order as to costs.

SD/-

JUDGE sub/-