Karnataka High Court
Shri. Shivanagowd S/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2021
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WP NO.103022 OF 2021 (S/RES)
BETWEEN
SHRI. SHIVANAGOWD S/O. ADHIVEPPAGOWDA PATIL
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: CRAFT TEACHER
SHRI. JAHADGURU GURUSHIDDSHWAR VIDHAYAVARDHAK AND
SANSKRITIKA SAMSTHE GULEGUDD S SHRI SHIVASHARANA
SHIVAPPAYYANAVAR HIGH SCHOOL NEELGUND 587201
TQ BADAMI DIST BAGALKOTE
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A S PATIL, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND
PARTLIMENTARY AFFAIRS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDA,
BENGALURU-560001
2 . THE STATE OF KARNTAKA
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(PRIMARY) REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDA, BENGALURU
3 . THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NRUPATUNAG ROAD, BENGALURU-560003
4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
BELAGAVI DIVIISON. BELGAVI
5 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUTIONS
2
(DDPI) BAGALKOTE DISTRICT BAGALKOTE
6 . THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUTANT GENERAL ( A .C)
KARNATAKA P.B 5329/69 ANNEXE BUILDING
PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
7 . THE CHAIRMAN
SHRI. JAGADGURU GURUSHIDDESHWAR VIDHYAVARDHAK
AND SANSKRITIKA SAMSTHE GULEGUDD-587203
TQ BADMI DIST BAGALAKOTE
8 . THE HEAD MASTER
SHRI. JAGADAGURU GURUSHIDDESHWAR VIDYAVARDHAK
AND SANSKRITIKA SAMSTHE GULEGUDD'S
SHRI. SHIVASHARANA SHIVAPPAYYANAVAR
HIGH SCHOOL, NEELGUND, 587201
TQ BADAMI DIST BAGALKOTE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R6)
(NOTICE TO R7 & 8 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO STRIKE DOWN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT NO.27 OF ''KARNATAKA PRIVATE AIDED
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EMPLOYESS (REGULATION OF PAY ,
PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS ) ACT , 2014 ARE CONSEQUENTLY
TO QUASH THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 12 2 2014
PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GEZETTE IN NO.SAMVYASHAE 60
SHASANA 2013, BANGALORE DATED 12 2 2014 IN PART IV A BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ISSUE WRIT OR
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER PAST SERVICE RENDERED BY THE
PETIONER PRIOR TO SANCTION OF THE GRANT IN AID FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ALL THE SERVICE BENEFITS AND FURTHER TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 TO RE-FIX THE PAY SCALE OF THE
PETITIONER AND TO PAY THE APPROPRIATE SALARY AND ALL OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS IN HIS FAVOUR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Government Advocate, who is directed to
take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Since no relief is claimed
as against respondent Nos.7 and 8, at the request of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, notice to the said respondents is
dispensed with.
2. Petitioner is the assistant teacher of the 7th
respondent-institution. Petitioner was appointed in the said
institution on 27/06/1985 and subsequent to his appointment,
the institution was admitted to grant-in-aid on 28/29.09.1993.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he was
appointed much earlier to the said date, his past service
rendered in the institution was not considered while bringing his
service within the purview of grant-in-aid and in the order dated
28.09.1993, it is specifically stated that the past service of the
petitioner in the institution shall not be considered for the
purpose of service benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.
No.21216 of 2014 and connected writ petitions disposed of on
10th July 2015, wherein this Court, while striking down the
Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees
(Regulation of Pay, Pension and other Benefits) Act, 2014
(Karnataka Act No.07/2014) as ultravires of Constitution of
India as it is opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution, has
observed that the respondent-State shall continue to pay salary
or pension as the case may be to petitioner 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that orders denying
the past service of the staff working in the aided school for the
purpose of service benefits, were questioned before this Court
and this Court had directed the concerned authorities to take
into consideration the past services of the petitioner and the
said order was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and subsequently, the enactment in question was brought into
force. This Court by order dated 10th July 2015 passed in W.P.
No.21216/2014 and connected writ petitions, struck down the
said enactment with a direction to pay the salary or pension as
the case may be as it was being paid prior to the impugned
enactment.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits
that the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.21216/2014 and
connected writ petitions has been challenged by the State in
Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015 and connected writ appeals.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and also perused the material
on record.
6. From a reading of the interim order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015 and
connected appeals, it is clear that, after recording the statement
of the learned Advocate General, the Division Bench has
observed that the State shall go on paying the employees their
current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject to the
result of the writ appeals and has also restrained the State from
initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of
pay. The Division Bench has also observed that so far as the
retired employees are concerned, the learned Advocate General
has submitted that the pension what they are getting shall be
continued to be paid to them and considering such submission,
the State was directed to continue to pay the pension as was
being paid to its retired employees as on the said date.
Under the circumstances, even this writ petition is
disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.
No.21216/2014 and connected writ petitions. However, it is
made clear that this order would be subject to the decision of
the Division Bench in W.A. No.2476/2015 and connected writ
appeals.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to
file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks.
In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2021
does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vb/-
