Karnataka High Court
Sri Surendra Kava vs Director Of Technical Education on 15 March, 2017
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
W. P. No.7947/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. SURENDRA KAVA
S/O KAVA A.T.
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF AUTOMOBILE
ENGINEERING, S.N.M. POLYTECHNIC
MOODBIDRE
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574197 .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G. JANARDHANA-ADV)
AND
1. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
2. THE PRINCIPAL
S.N.M. POLYTECHNIC
MOODBIDRE
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574197 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E.S. INDIRESH-AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO
CONSIDER THE PROMOTION OF THE PETITIONER AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
ACCORDINGLY TO GRANT PROMOTION TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Learned Addl. Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate.
3. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
"Direct the Respondent No.1 to consider the promotion of the petitioner as recommended by the 2nd Respondent under Annexure-B in Ref.
No.SNMP/2013-14/696 and accordingly to grant promotion to the petitioner".
4. The learned Addl. Government Advocate would submit that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition is infructuous on account of the fact that the provisions of the Act has already been struck down by this court in W.P. Nos.112957-113040/2014 and W.P. Nos.113041- 113050/2014 whereby this Court has passed the following:-
3
"(i) "A writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to pay arrears of salary and other emoluments as per revised pay scale to which the petitioners would be entitled to for the period 01.01.2006 to 23.12.2009 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on failure to make such payment petitioners would be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a.
(ii) It is needless to state that on the request made by the State Government after payment for releasing 80% of the contribution payable by the Central Government and on such request being received within three months thereof, the Central Government shall release the said amount as per the provisions of the scheme."
5. Further, this court by its order in W.P. No.21216/2014 and connected petitions was also pleased to strike down the said provision and in that view extended the benefits to the petitioners therein. The same was 4 taken note of and followed by this court in W.P. No.108588-108604/2015 dated 09.09.2015 wherein this court has passed the following:-
"i) The writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) Respondent State shall continue to pay salary or pension as the case may be, to petitioners and similarly placed persons as was being paid pursuant to its earlier orders or in other words, as it was being paid prior to impugned enactment.
OR The respondent-State shall comply with the directions already issued by this Court extending the monetary benefits and treating the petitioners working in Private Aided Educational Institutions on par with the employees working in Government Institutions.
(iii) In the event of respondent-State having recovered any amount/s pursuant to the impugned enactment, same is hereby ordered to be refunded to the respective petitioner/s by the State expeditiously, at 5 any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iv) The respondent-State is directed to implement the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions cited supra and in these writ petitions, as expeditiously as possible."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that despite the request, the respondent authority had failed to refund the same as ordered by this court. It is not in dispute that the said provision has been struck down and the same has been confirmed by the appellate court and the said order was appealed in the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has also confirmed the same. The said law laid down by this court having become final, it was incumbent upon the respondents to act in compliance with the directions of this Court. Hence in view of the above, the petitioners herein would be entitled to the similar benefits of the directions issued by this court herein supra noted. It is open for the petitioners to submit a representation to the concerned authority/respondent No.3 who shall examine the same and dispose of the same 6 in the light of the observations made by this court in W.P. Nos.108588-108604 dated 09.09.2015 and W.P. Nos.112957-113040/14 and W.P. No.21216/2004 and extend the benefit to the petitioners if they are similarly situated.
These Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs