Karnataka High Court
Sri N H Mahalingegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No. 19666 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN :
Sri. N.H.Mahalingegowda,
S/o. Late Husthimmegowda,
Aged about 60 years,
Occ: Retired Teacher,
Worked at Sri. Ranganatha Swamy
High School, Vaderapura,
Nagamangala (Tq),
Mandya (District) - 571432.
And also
Sri. N.H.Mahalingegowda,
S/o. Late Husthimmegowda,
R/at A.Nagathihalli Village,
Alisandra Post, Bindiganavile (Hobli),
Nagamangala (Tq), Mandya District-571432.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Maruthi G.B., Advocate)(PH)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary,
Department of Primary Education,
Multistoried Building, Vidhana Veedhi,
Bengaluru-560001.
-2-
2. The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
Karnataka, Bengaluru,
P.B.No.5369, A Block,
New Building, Park House Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
Represented by its Sr. Accounts Officer.
3. The Director,
Department of Primary Education,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
4. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions,
Administration,
Department of Public Instructions
Mandya-571428.
5. The Block Education Officer,
Nagamangala,
Mandya (District)-571432.
... Respondents
(By Smt. M.C.Nagashree, AGA)(PH)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
endorsement dated 05.02.2019 passed by the R-2, marked
at annexure-K and direct the respondent authorities to
take into account the service of the petitioner from the
date of entry into the 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 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
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
certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 5.2.2019
issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-K and to issue
a writ of mandamus to the respondents herein to take
into account the service of the petitioner from the
date of entry into service for the purpose of computing
the pay scale, seniority, increment and other
consequential benefits as well as pensionary benefits
and other legally entitled benefits.
2. The petitioner in the writ petition was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 1.6.1992 to a
teaching post in the Sri Ranganatha Swamy High
School, Vaderapura, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya
District, a private aided educational institution. He
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.9623-24/2015
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
ckl
