Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Karnataka State Government And Aided ... on 26 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.19855 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
TO BE REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (PRE UNIVERSITY)
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNEMNT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,BENGALURU -560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES,
VISHVESHWARAIAH SMALL TOWERS,
BENGALURU -560001.
4. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDN,
MALLESHWARAM 18TH CROSS,
BENGALURU 560001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT AND
AIDED PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGES-2008 AFTER
DIRECT RECRUITED LECTURERS ASSOCIATION
WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
'VIDHATRI NILAYA', NISARGA LAYOUT, URGADURU
-2-
POST, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201,
TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
DR. K V UMASHANKAR,
50 YEARS, S/O SRI K VEERANNA
(ALSO A LECTURER IN P U COLLEGE,
BHADRAVATHI-577301.
2. DR.K.V UMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O SRI K VEERANNA, LECTURER,
SILVER JUBLIEE GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE,
BHADRAVATHI - 577301,
RESIDING AT 'VIDHATRI NILAYA',
NISARGA LAYOUT,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577203.
3. SRI RAJU H J,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O SRI JAYANNA H, LECTURER,
RAJANAHALLI SEETHAMMA,
GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE FOR GIRLS,
P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577006,
R/AT DOOR NO.1515, 1ST MAIN, 14TH CROSS,
VINOBHANAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577006.
4. DR. ANANTRAM NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI SUBBANNA NAYAK,
LECTURER, GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE, HIRIYADKA,
UDUPI-576113, R/AT VIRASAI, KATTE ANMGADI,
PALLI POST: 574 244, KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
5. SRI CHANDRANATHA M,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O SRI JAYARAJA JAI,
LECTURER, GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE,
CHELAIRU, MANGALURU-570 575,
R/AT CHANDRIKA, BANGRAKULUR,
KOTTARACHOWKI, MANGALURU.
6. SRI HEMANTHARAJU S N,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O SRI NAGARAJAPPA N, LECTURER,
GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE FOR BOYS,
CHITRADURGA-577 501,
R/AT NO.82, SRI GURU THIPPERUDRA SWAMY KRUPA,
NEHRU NAGAR 3RD CROSS, HULALKERE ROAD,
-3-
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
7. SMT.GEETHA H,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O SRI SATISH KUMAR G,
LECTURER, GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE,
T.KODIHALLI POST, ARIKERE TALUK,
BALENA HALLI, R/AT PANDURANGARAO COMPOUND,
OLA SANTE MAIDANA, BHUTANA GUDI,
BHADRAVATI-577 301.
8. DR.SANDESH A.L,
S/O SRI LAKSHMI RAMANA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
LECTURER IN GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE,
SHIVANI, AJJAMPURA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
R/AT ANUVANA HALLI,
SHIVANI POST: 577 549,
AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P A KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ON
THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE AND THE GROUNDS TO BE
URGED DURING THE HEARING OF THE INSTANT WRIT
PETITION, THE PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2021
(ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU IN A.No-
664-671/2021.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 23RD JULY, 2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-4-
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Petitioners No.1 being the State and 2 to 4, being its authorities are assailing the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short).
2. The parties to the petition shall be referred to as per their designation before the Tribunal. Present Respondents were the applicants and the petitioners were the Respondents before the Tribunal.
3. In terms of the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the respondents in the present petition who were the applicants before the Tribunal are entitled to special allowance from the date of their appointment until the merger of special allowance in terms of the order dated 19.04.2018.
4. Certain facts necessary for adjudication of the petition can be noted as under:
-5-
• The first applicant is a registered Association of directly recruited lecturers in Government Aided Pre-University Colleges. Applicants No.2 to 8 are the Lecturers in Government Aided Pre-University Colleges recruited after 01.08.2008. • On 12.05.2006, the Government granted special allowance of Rs.200/- as interim relief with effect from 01.04.2006 to the Government and Aided High School Teachers and Pre-University College Lecturers till the revision of pay scale based on the final recommendation of 5th State Pay Commission. On 28.08.2008, the revised pay scale was sanctioned to the Primary School Teachers w.e.f. 01.08.2008.
• On 29.08.2008, the Government discontinued the special allowance of Rs.200/- to Primary School Teachers appointed on or after 01.08.2008 as the revision of the pay scale to the Primary School Teachers was given effect. The Government Order dated 29.08.2008 also clarified that the Primary -6- School Teachers recruited prior to 01.08.2008 will be entitled to receive a special monthly allowance of Rs.200/-.
• On 09.05.2012, the Government enhanced the monthly allowance from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- for Primary School Teachers and Rs.400/- in respect of High School Teachers and Rs.500/- in respect of Pre-University College Lecturers. It was further clarified that the enhanced special allowance is payable only to such persons who are already receiving such special allowance. • Despite the Government Order dated 29.08.2008, which did not specifically discontinued the special allowance payable to the Pre-University College Lecturers, same was denied to some of the Lecturers. Thus, Applications No.7100-03/2010 were filed by some of the Lecturers in Pre- University College. Those applications were allowed and the Government was directed to -7- consider the claim of the applicants in those applications.
• On 28.07.2014, the Government issued corrigendum to the Government Order dated 29.08.2008, and clause No.3 was substituted to the Government Order dated 29.08.2008 to provide special allowance to Secondary School Teachers and Pre-University Lecturers who were appointed prior to 01.08.2008 and Clause No.4 was inserted denying special allowance to the Secondary School Teachers and Pre-University Lecturers appointed on or after 01.08.2008.
• Writ Petition Nos.49356/2013 and 51109-11/2013 were filed by the State challenging the order in Applications No.7100-03/2010. The said writ petitions were dismissed on 14.12.2015. On 27.01.2017, Special Leave Petitions filed by the State in SLP Nos.16469-16472/2016 challenging the order in Writ Petitions No.49356/2013 and connected matters were also dismissed. It is -8- relevant to refer to the relevant paragraphs in Writ Petitions No.49356/2013 passed by the co- ordinate bench of this Court on 14.12.2015:
"6. xxxx. From the Government Order dated 29.08.2008, it is amply clear that the Government has not accepted the recommendations of the 5th State Pay Commission with regard to payment of special allowance of Rs.200/- to the Primary School Teachers only. In respect of other categories of the teaching staff i.e., high school teachers as well as P.U.College Lecturers, the Government Order dated 12.05.2006 granting special allowance @ Rs.200/- p.m. will continue. Since the Government Order dated 29.08.2008 is simple and clear, we do not find any ambiguity in the said order.-9-
7. In this view of the matter, other teaching staff including the respondents who are lecturers of P.U. Colleges are entitled to the benefit of special allowance. Hence, no interference is called for Petitions to fail. Accordingly, Writ Petitions are dismissed".
(Emphasis added) • Thereafter on 19.04.2018, the Government revised the pay scale based on 6th State Pay Commission, and the special allowance provided earlier merged with the basic pay.
5. The State also initiated action to recover the special allowance paid to the lecturers who were appointed on or after 01.08.2008 on the premise that they are not entitled to the said special allowances and same had been paid inadvertently. Under these circumstances, the applicants before the Tribunal sought a declaration that applicants No. 2 to 8 and members of applicant No.1 -
- 10 -
Association are entitled to special allowance based on the Government Order dated 12.05.2006 and they also prayed for quashing the Government order dated 01.12.2020 which directed recovery of the allowance paid.
6. Before the Tribunal, the State objected to the claim of the applicants. The State tried to justify the impugned orders on the premise that certain lecturers who were appointed on or after 01.08.2008, though not entitled to special allowance in view of the corrigendum by the State on 29.08.2008, have been inadvertently paid special allowance.
7. The Tribunal overruled the objection filed by the State and allowed the applications. The Tribunal noticed that some of the similarly placed lecturers who had approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.4412-28/2020, and 3936-74/2017 were granted the benefits based on the findings in Application Nos.7100-7103/2010. The Tribunal has also noticed that, while allowing Application Nos.4412- 28/2020 vide order dated 05.05.2021, the Tribunal has noticed that the order passed in Writ Petition
- 11 -
No.49356/2013 has attained finality and the Special Leave Petitions challenging the said order is also rejected. The Tribunal also noticed that clauses No.1 and 3 of the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 in Applications No.4412-4428/2020 have been held to be ultra vires insofar as the applicants in Applications No.4412- 4428/2020.
8. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the State has filed the present writ petition.
9. Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would contend that applicant No.1 - Association cannot espouse the cause of its members. He would also submit that though the Association is a registered Association, same is not recognised under the Karnataka Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association (Rules), 2015 (Rules, 2015' for short). It is also his further contention that applicant No.1 Association even if recognised, cannot be an aggrieved person and, as such, could not have maintained the application. It is also his further contention that the
- 12 -
corrigendum dated 28.07.2014 has categorically made it very clear that the lecturers appointed on or after 01.08.2008 are not entitled to the special allowance. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the order of the Tribunal.
10. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents pointed out that the applicant No.1- Association before the Tribunal is duly registered under law and application for recognition under Rules, 2015 is still pending before the Government and the same is not yet rejected. It is also his contention that the maintainability of the application by applicant No.1- Association was never raised before the Tribunal. He would submit that the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ petition No.49356/20213 and connected matters has held that all lecturers on par with the respondents in the said writ petitions are entitled to special allowance. Thus, he would urge to dismiss the writ petition.
11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.
- 13 -
12. The disposal of the applications and the writ petitions referred to above is not in dispute. The contesting respondents No.2 to 8 are admittedly, the lecturers in Pre University College appointed after 01.08.2008. The private parties to the proceedings referred to above are also the lecturers in Pre-University College appointed after 01.08.2008. In terms of the orders passed in the aforementioned applications/petitions, the lecturers appointed after 01.08.2008 have been given the benefit of special allowance for a certain period.
13. The question is, "Whether the 1st applicant/1st respondent-Association maintains an application espousing the cause of its members who are the lecturers in Pre- University College?"
14. Normally, the petition/application by an Association of people espousing the cause of its members is not maintainable, unless the Association itself is aggrieved. Here the grievance raised is that of the individual grievance of the members of the Association. Thus, for redressal of such grievance, the aggrieved
- 14 -
party/member has to approach the appropriate forum. In the instant case, technically respondent No.1 - Association cannot be considered as an aggrieved person. However, it is relevant to note that even before the 1st respondent - Association along with some of its members who are the lecturers in Pre-University College approached the Tribunal for appropriate relief, the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.49356/2013 and connected matters had declared the rights of the lecturers who are similarly placed with the respondents in the said petition. Thus, the rights of the members of the 1st respondent - Association, namely the rights of the Pre-University Lectures are already adjudicated and crystalised in so far as their entitlement to special allowance in terms of order dared 12.05.2006. The State had challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.49356/2013 and connected matters before the Apex Court in SLP No.16469-16472/2016. The said challenge failed as the SLP was dismissed on 27.01.2017.
- 15 -
15. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the conclusion made in paragraph No.7 to the effect, "In this view of the matter, other teaching staff including the respondents who are lecturers of PU college are entitled to the benefit of special allowance" has remained intact and attained finality. The aforementioned finding makes it very clear that there is a positive direction to the State to confer the special allowance to all other teaching staff who are lecturers in the Pre-University College.
16. Since the rights of other lecturers in Pre- University College who were not parties to the Writ Petition No.49356/2013 and connected matters were also declared in the aforementioned writ petition, this Court is of the view that the application filed by the Association is maintainable though technically the Association is not an aggrieved person in the strict sense.
17. It is also relevant to note that the Association is duly registered. Though it is contended by the State that the Association has not yet received recognition under the Rules, 2015, on going through the said Rules, it is noticed
- 16 -
that the recognised Association under the Rules, 2015 can submit representation or send a delegation to the Government in connection with service condition and common interest of the members. There are a few more conditions specified in the Rules, 2015 which are not relevant to the present discussion. It is relevant to note that the 1st respondent-Association which is duly registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 on 11.11.2020 submitted a representation dated 30.11.2020 to the competent authority seeking recognition. The representation is not yet considered. In other words, it is neither allowed nor rejected. This being the position, the respondent/State cannot urge the contention that the 1st respondent, without recognition, cannot maintain an application.
18. Since the 1st respondent - Association is duly registered under the relevant Act and also given the fact that its members' right to claim special allowance is already adjudicated by the competent Court and order in the earlier writ petition is a declaration as to the
- 17 -
entitlement of similarly placed employees and same having attained finality, this Court, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, is of the view that the contention relating to maintainability of the application by the 1st respondent - Association is too technical and cannot be raised at this stage. Such technical contention cannot be accepted given the fact that the rights of the members of the 1st respondent - Association are already declared in the previous proceeding. The State being a welfare State, is bound by the Constitutional mandate of Article 14. Ideally speaking, the State should have extended the benefit to all eligible Pre-University Lectures, upon dismissal of Special Leave Petition No. 16469-16472/2016. On the other hand, the State proceeded to initiate action to recover the alleged dues from some of the Lectures on the premise that inadvertently, the special allowance was paid to ineligible persons. In such a scenario, the application filed by applicant No.1 cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. The contention that applicant No.1 cannot maintain an application was not raised before the Tribunal. Though it is a question of law which can be
- 18 -
agitated even in higher forums for the first time, what is to be noticed is, had such a contention been raised before the Tribunal, probably the aggrieved Lecturers would have joined other applicants raising individual grievances. In that event, the result would have been the same. In the backdrop of above said peculiar circumstances of this case, the contention of the State is rejected.
19. This Court does not find any error in the order of the Tribunal extending parity to similarly placed persons, which is in tune with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
20. Hence the following.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29.10.2021 in Application No.664-671/2021 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru is confirmed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/BRN