Smt Dr Girijamma N vs The Principal Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 1003 Kant

                         1



in THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

       WRIT PETITION No.46619 OF 2017 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT Dr. GIRIJAMMA N
D/O NARAYANNAPPA M (LATE)
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OCC:ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
NEW HORIZON COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
100 FEET ROAD
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-8
                                      ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: MARUTHI G.B., ADVOCATE)
         (VIDEO CONFERENCING)

AND:

1.     THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
       DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BANGALORE-01

2.     THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
       DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
       (UNIVERSITY-2)
       M S BUILDING,
       DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BENGALURU-10.
                          2



3.   THE DIRECTOR OF STATE EDUCATIONAL
     RESEARCH AND TRAINING,
     NEAR HOSAKEREHALI POST OFFICE,
     100 FEET RING ROAD,
     BANASHANKARI 3RD BLOCK,
     BANGALORE-560085.

4.   THE COMMISSIONER
     COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
     PALACE ROAD
     BANGALORE-560009
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT: M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA)
      (PHYSICAL HEARING)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO   QUASH   THE    ENDORSEMENT    DATED:     22.9.2016
PASSED BY THE R-2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-H AND
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED: 14.2.2017 ISSUED BY
THE R-3 WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-M AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF
ENTRY IN TO SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING
THE PAY SCALE, SENIORITY INCREMENT, AND OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL      SERVICE   BENEFITS    AS   WELL   AS
PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND OTHER LEGALLY ENTITLED
BENEFITS.
     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                            3




                        ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for

a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of

mandamus to the respondents herein to reckon the

service rendered by her prior to the admission of the

Institution, where she is working, to grant-in-aid.

2. The petitioner in the writ petition was

appointed as an Assistant Professor on 06.08.1993, to

a teaching post in the New Horizon College of

Education, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, a private aided

educational institution. She contends that the claim is

covered in terms of order dated 16.08.2010 passed in

W.P. No.25447/2010, order dated 22.09.2011 passed

in W.A.No.4788/2010, order dated 02.07.2012 passed

in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.7365/2012,

the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Apex Court

in Review Petition (Civil) No.2364/2012, Government

Order dated 22.02.2013, the order dated 30.07.2013

passed in W.P.Nos.11299-11309/2013 and the order

dated 16.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.29293-94/2013.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents-State would accept that

the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgments, but

submits that the matter is pending before the learned

Division Bench.

4. This Court in W.P.Nos.9623-9624/2015

disposed of on 13.01.2016, while noticing the fact of

the pendency of writ appeal No.2476/2015, has held

as follows:

"4. But in order to overcome the judgments of this Court, the State had enacted the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulations of pay, pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014, thereby denying the pay scale of University Grants Commission for the period

mentioned above. The said Act was challenged by filing large numbers of writ petitions. The writ petitions were decided by common judgment in the case of Dr. B.K. Naik (supra). By the said judgment, this Court had struck down the Act as unconstitutional. This Court had further directed the Government to pay salary to the petitioners therein, and to others similarly situated persons, as was being paid before the impugned enactment.

Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners before this Court is to extend the benefits of said judgment to them as well.

5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment dated 10-7- 2015 passed in the case of Dr.B.K.Naik (supra) has been challenged before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 27-11- 2015 passed by the learned Division Bench is as under:

"Insofar as the in-service respondents are concerned, we record the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject, however, to the result of the writ appeals. However, they are restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of pay".

6. According to the said order, the learned Division Bench has recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject to the result of the writ appeals.

7. Considering the fact that the learned Advocate General has made a statement before the learned Division Bench, and in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Dr.B.K. Naik (supra), this Court

also directs the State to re-fix the pay scale payable to the petitioners. However, it should be made amply clear that the re- fixation of the pay scale would be subject to the decision of the writ appeal pending before this Court in Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015."

5. Since the petitioner is similarly situated and

the issue raised is also similar, the writ petition stands

disposed in terms of the aforesaid order passed by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to

consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with

law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*mn/-