Karnataka High Court
Sri. Y.D. Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2018
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.51923/2015 [S-RES]
BETWEEN:
SRI. Y.D. MANJUNATHA
S/O Y.D.BASAVANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
LECTURER IN GEOLOGY
SJM PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA
RESIDING AT "VIGNESHWARA KRUPA"
3RD CROSS, NEHARU NAGARA
HOLALKERE ROAD
CHITRADURGA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA.R., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY-II
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION
2
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
4. THE SECRETARY
SRI JAGADGURU MURUGARANENDRA
VIDYA PEET(R)
MURUGARAJENDRA MUTT
CHITRADURGA TOWN.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR., AGA. FOR R1 TO R3
R4 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE R-1 TO 2 TO TAKE CORRECTIVE AND EFFECTIVE
FURTHER NEEDFUL ACTION PURSUANT TO THE
COMMUNICATION LETTER DTD:13.11.2012, 03.05.2013,
20.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, H, L,
AND COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED:18.06.2015 ISSUED
BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-O, AGAINST THE R-4 FOR
RELEADING THE PAY SCALE/SALARY ATTACHED TO THE
POST OF LECTURE IN GEOLOGY FOR THE PERIOD DURING
WHICH THE PETITIONER DISCHARGED THE DUTIES AND IN
THE EVENT OF FAILURE OF THE R-4 TO PAY THE SCALE
ATTACHED THE POST/SALARY PAYBLE TO THE PETITIONER
AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-1 & 2 TO
DERECOGNIZE THE R-4 INSTITUTION AND WITHHELD THE
GRANT EXETENDED TO THE R-4 INSTITUTION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs :
3
i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take corrective and effective further needful action pursuant to the communication letter dated 13-11-2012, 03-05-2013, 20-04-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-F, H, L and communication letter dated 18-06-2015 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-O, against the respondent No.4 for releasing the pay scale/salary attached to the post of lecturer in Geology for the period during which the petitioner discharged the duties and in the event of failure of the 4th respondent to pay the pay scale attached to the post/salary payable to the petitioner and consequently direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to derecognize the 4th respondent -
institution and withheld the grant extended to the 4th respondent institutions.
ii) Issue such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this petition with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard Sri. Padmanabha R., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Y.H. VijayaKumar, learned AGA for respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent 4 was served and remained unrepresented. Perused the writ petition and Annexures produced along with the writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is, petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Geology after following due procedure prescribed under law for selection and appointment, at the Pre-University college run by the 4th respondent. As his appointment was in accordance with law, it was approved by the second respondent without the benefit of grant-in-aid. Therefore, he is entitled to be paid salary, payable on par with the salary payable to a lecturer appointed in a Government college, as per Rule 5 of the Karnataka Private Education Institutions (D and C) Rules, 1975. Since petitioner has not been paid salary on par with the salary payable to a Lecturer appointed in a Government college, he has made representations to the respondents herein to consider his representations. Since his representations were not considered, he filed a writ 5 petition before this Court in W.P.No.13048/2012 (S-Res) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by him, keeping in view the Government orders dated 12-01-2006, 12-10- 2007 and circular dated 30-06-2007, and in the light of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Private Education Institution (D and C) Rules, 1975 and this Court by order dated 01-06- 2012 disposed of the writ petition, by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
4. It is his further case, that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the second respondent by letter dated 13-11-2012 informed the fourth respondent stating that it is the duty of the management to pay minimum wages to the Lecturer appointed without the benefit of aid as per rules and circular referred to in his letter dated 13-11-2012 and directed the management to 6 pay minimum wages to the petitioner, failing which why steps should not be taken to cancel the permission granted in favour of the fourth respondent.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is, despite the order of this Court dated 01-06-2012 passed in W.P.No.13048/2012 and despite the direction issued by second respondent as per his letters dated 13-11-2012 and 03-05-2013 produced at annexures `F' and `H', fourth respondent has not been paying salary to the petitioner as payable to his cadre under Government scale. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, petition may be allowed and respondents 1 to 3 may be directed to take steps available to them under law, including cancellation of recognition issued to the fourth respondent.
6. Sri. Vijayakumar, learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and as could be seen from Annexures `F', `H' and `L', respondents have directed the 7 fourth respondent to pay proper salary payable to the petitioner and they have also cautioned the fourth respondent as to why steps should not be taken for cancellation of the permission accorded to them for running the college. However, he submits, respondent No.4 may finally be granted two months time from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if respondent No.4 fails to pay minimum basic salary applicable to the post of the petitioner as payable to a Lecturer in Government college, respondents have no option but to take other steps available to them under law, including the steps for cancellation of recognition.
7. In view of the above, the following order is passed :
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Respondent No.4 is granted two months time from the date of receipt of copy of this order, to take steps to pay difference of arrears of salary for the period for which the petitioner had worked in the college as Lecturer, on par 8 with the salary payable to a Lecturer working in Government College.
8. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits, now, petitioner has discontinued his service in the fourth respondent - college and therefore he will be satisfied if he is paid difference of arrears of salary for the period for which he worked as Lecturer in the college run by the fourth respondent.
9. In the event of fourth respondent failing to pay the difference of arrears of salary to the petitioner, as indicated above, petitioner may bring the same to the notice of respondents 1 to 3 and in such case, respondents 1 to 3 shall take necessary steps available to them under law, including the one for cancellation of recognition granted to the fourth respondent, within three months from the date of receipt of such letter.
Sd/-
mgn/- JUDGE