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 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr Rangaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2019

Author: P.B.Bajanthri

Bench: P.B. Bajanthri

                       1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019

                    BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

       W.P. NOS.13380-13382/2019 (S-RES)

BETWEEN

1.   DR RANGASWAMY
     S/O SANNEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
     RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
     D BANNUMAIAH'S COLLEGE OF
     COMMERCE AND ARTS
     MYSORE-570 024
     #453, A & B BLOCK
     PADOVANA ROAD
     KUVEMPUNAGAR
     MYSURU-570 023

2.   MRS. NOOR FATIMA
     W/O S. MIR SANAULLA
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
     ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
     MAHARANIS ART'S COLLEGE
     JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570 005
     #L-8, 10TH CROSS
     SHIVAJI ROAD
     N. R. MOHALLA
     MYSORE-570 007

3.   MR. VENKATASWAMY
     S/O LATE YALAKKAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
     ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
     GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE
                         2




      COLLEGE, MALAVALLI
      MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431
      #BEHIND K E B 1ST CROSS
      SIDDARTHANAGAR
      MADDUR TOWN
      MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428
                                 ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAMANANDA A. D., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
      EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
      (HIGHER EDUCATION)
      M. S. BUILDING
      BENGALURU-560 001

2.    THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      TO GOVERNMENT
      FINANCE DEPARTMENT
      GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
      VIDHANA SOUDHA
      BENGALURU-560 001

3.    THE COMMISSIONER FOR
      COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
      IN KARNATAKA
      PALACE ROAD
      BENGALURU -560 001

4.    UNION OF INDIA
      BY ITS SECRETARY TO
      GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF
      HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
      DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
      EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAVAN
      NEW DELHI-110 001
                                 3




5.   THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
     IN KARNATAKA (A &E)
     PARK HOUSE
     BENGALURU-560 001

6.   REGISTRAR
     RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
     BENGALURU-560 041                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M. S. PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5;
    SMT. M. C. NAGASHREE, ADV. FOR R4.)

     THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
COMPLY THE ORDERS PASSED IN W.P.NO.6385-
6448/2016 DATED 26.02.2016 TO PAY THE ARREARS
OF SALARY AND OTHER EMOLUMENTS AS PER REVISED
PAY SCALES TO THE PETITIONERS AND AS PER THE
DETAILS OF BALANCE OF ARREARS OF AMOUNT WITH
INTEREST TO BE PAID TO THE PETITIONERS VIDE
ANNEXURE-B IN TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED
VIDE ANNEXURE-A ANNEXED TO THIS WRIT PETITION.


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

                          ORDER

In the instant Writ Petitions, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction to the respondents to comply the orders 4 passed in WP No.6385-6448/2016 dated 26.2.2016 to pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments as per revised pay scales to the Petitioners and as per the details of balance of arrears of amount with interest to be paid to the petitioners vide Annexure-B in terms of the judgment passed vide Annexure-A annexed to this Writ Petition.
(b) Issue any other appropriate Writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. It seems, the petitioners are entitled for certain arrears of amount along with interest in terms of various decisions of this court and read with the statement made by the respondents in those proceedings. If the petitioners are entitled for certain arrears of amount from the respondents, they are required to make necessary demand before the appropriate authority.

3. Perusal of the materials on record reveal that there is no demand by the petitioners so as to seek Writ of Mandamus against the concerned respondents. 5

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Subrat Jain & Others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486 has held that in the absence of any statutory right and demand, writ of mandamus cannot be entertained.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed.

The petitioners are permitted to approach the competent authority by making necessary application/representation & documents. If any such application/representation & documents are submitted within a period of four weeks from today, the concerned authority is hereby directed to examine and take positive decision and communicate the decision to the petitioners at the earliest.

Sd/-

JUDGE PL*