Karnataka High Court
Dr. Ganapathi Bhat vs Vasudeva Asaranna on 17 March, 2021
Author: B.V.Nagarathna And Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.A.No.2674/2018 C/W W.A.No.2673/2018,
W.A.No.2841/2018 AND W.A.No.2842/2018 (S-RES)
In W.A.No.2674/2018
BETWEEN:
Dr. Ganapathi Bhat,
S/o Parameshwara Bhat,
Aged about 53 years,
Occ: Lecturer,
Sri Durga Parameshwari,
First Grade College,
Kateel - 574 148.
Mangalore Dakshina Kannada. ... Appellant
(By Sri. Govindaraj.K., Advocate)
AND:
1. Vasudeva Asaranna,
Aged about 76 years,
S/o Late Srinivasa Asranna,
2
2. Srihari Narayanadasa Asaranna,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Late Sadananda Asaranna,
3. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary to
Government,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Buildings,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. Commissioner for Religious and
Charitable Endowments in the
State of Karnataka, Tippu Sultan,
Palace Road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
5. Sri. Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada,
Represented by its Administrator.
6. Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
(Collegiate Education),
M.S.Buildings,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for
Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocate for R-1 & R-2;
Smt. Vani.H, AGA for R-3, R-4 and R-6;
R-5 is served and unrepresented)
3
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, set aside the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8044-45/2010 dated
17.07.2018 and consequently dismiss the Writ Petition in
the interest of justice and equity.
In W.A.No.2673/2018
BETWEEN:
Dr. Ganapathi Bhat,
S/o Parameshwara Bhat,
Aged about 53 years, Occ: Lecturer,
Sri Durga Parameshwari First Grade College,
Kateel - 574 148.
Dakshina Kannada District. ... Appellant
(By Sri. Govindaraj.K., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri. Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustees.
2. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary to
Government, Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Commissioner for Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments in the
State of Karnataka, Tippu Sultan,
Palace Road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
4
4. Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
(Collegiate Education),
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 0010 ... Respondents
(By Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for
Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocate for R-1;
Smt. Vani.H, AGA for R-2 to R-4)
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.10964/2018
dated 17/07/2018 and consequently dismiss the Writ
Petition.
In W.A.No.2841/2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. Bhaskar.V.Bhat,
S/o Venkatramana Bhat,
Aged about 60 years,
Retd. Lecturer, Sri Durga Parameshwari
First Grade College, Kateel - 574 148,
Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada. ... Appellant
(By Sri. K.J.Kamath and Sri. K.G.Kamath, Advocate)
AND:
1. Vasudeva Asaranna,
Aged about 76 years,
S/o Late Srinivasa Asranna,
Hereditary Archaks,
Sree Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.
5
2. Srihari Narayanadasa Asaranna,
Aged aobut 47 years,
S/o Late Sadananda Asaranna,
Hereditary Archaks,
Sree Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.
3. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. Commissioner for Religious and
Charitable Endowments in the
State of Karnataka,
Tippu Sultan, Palace Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
5. Sri. Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada,
Represented by its Administrator.
6. Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
(Collegiate Education),
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. P.S.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for
Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocte for R-1 and R-2;
Smt. Vani.H, AGA for R-3, R-4 and R-6)
6
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order
passed by the Learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.8044/8045/2010 dated 17/07/2018 and
consequently dismiss the Writ Petition in the interest of
justice and equity.
In W.A.No.2842/2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. Bhaskar.V.Bhat,
S/o Venkatramana Bhat,
Aged about 60 years,
Retd. Lecturer, Sri Durga Parameshwari
First Grade College,
Kateel - 574 148. ... Appellant
(By Sri. K.J.Kamath and Sri. K.G.Kamath, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kateel - 574 148,
Mangaluru Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada, Represented by its
Hereditary Trustees.
2. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary to
Government,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Buildings,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Commissioner for Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments
7
in the State of Karnataka, Tippu Sultan,
Palace Road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
4. Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Education,
(Collegiate Education),
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. P.S.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for
Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocate for R-1 and R-2;
Smt. Vani H., AGA for R-3, R-4 and R-6.)
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.8044-8045/2010 C/w W.P.No.10964/2018 dated
17-07-2018 and consequently dismiss the Writ Petition
in the interest of justice and equity.
These appeals, having been heard and reserved for
judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day,
SANJAY GOWDA, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are preferred by two lecturers,
namely, Dr.Ganapathi Bhat and Dr.Bhaskar V.Bhat.
2. Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple, a Muzrai
Institution, is running an Educational Institution called
Sri Durga Parameshwari First Grade College at Kateelu,
Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution', for
short). The appellants were appointed as lecturers in the
said Institution, which is admittedly, not admitted to
grant-in-aid and is thus an un-aided Institution.
3. Though the lecturers in the said Institution
were not entitled in the normal course to UGC pay
scales, nevertheless, the Institution in the year 1994
extended UGC pay scales to them.
4. The fact that UGC pay scales were extended
in the year 1994 is clear from a reading of the
communication, which is produced as Annexure-R12 to
W.P.Nos.8044-55/2010, which has been issued by the
Director of Collegiate Education to the Deputy
Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. This fact
is also affirmed by the finding recorded in this regard by
this Court in the order passed in W.P.No.46833/2004
connected with W.P.No.48831/2004, in which the
present appellants were the writ petitioners along with
others.
5. It is not in dispute that the UGC pay scales
were revised and the State Government extended the
revised UGC pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996 to
its employees by its order dated 15.11.1999.
6. The Managing Committee of the Institution,
thereafter, passed a resolution proposing to extend
revised UGC pay scales to the eligible lecturers of the
Institution as per the resolution dated 31.07.2000, which
is produced as Annexure-R7 to W.P.Nos.8044-45/2010.
7. The Administrator of the Muzrai Institutions
on the basis of the recommendation of the Management
Committee of the Institution, submitted a proposal to the
Deputy Commissioner to extend the revised UGC pay
scales to the appellants. Thereafter, in a meeting chaired
by the Deputy Commissioner, a decision was taken to
extend the revised UGC pay scales to the appellants.
8. However, the Commissioner for Hindu
Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments for the
State of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Endowment Commissioner') exercising his suo motu
powers stayed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner
extending the revised UGC pay scales.
9. The lecturers submitted a representation to
the Endowment Commissioner to vacate the interim
order by which extension of revised UGC pay scales had
been stayed.
10. The Endowment Commissioner by an order
dated 05.06.2004 came to the conclusion that the
revised UGC pay scales had been extended by the
Deputy Commissioner without obtaining his prior
approval i.e., the Endowment Commissioner who was
the competent authority and therefore, the said decision
could not be sustained.
11. The Endowment Commissioner accordingly
proceeded to confirm the stay of the order by which he
had withheld the implementation of extension of revised
UGC pay scales.
12. This order of the Endowment Commissioner
was challenged by the lecturers before this Court in
W.P.No.46833/2004 connected with
W.P.No.48831/2004.
13. This Court by order dated 03.01.2006
dismissed the writ petitions. However, while dismissing
the writ petition, this Court stated as follows:
"6. The college where these petitioners
are working is run by Sri.Durga Parameshwari
Temple, a Muzarai Institution. The Deputy
Commissioner of the District is the Muzarai
Officer who is the Chairman of the said temple.
A Financial commitment of the nature of
extending a UGC scale has to be approved by
the Endowment Commissioner. Admittedly, the
college run by the temple is not admitted to
grant in aid. In the absence of aid from the
Government, the management of the college is
under no obligation to extend the UGC scale.
Still in the year 1994 they have extended the
UGC scale by taking note of the local conditions
and their financial capacities. The extension of
2002 UGC pay scale after revision cannot be
automatic when there was no obligation to
extend the said scale. Though the Managing
Committee recommended for the said scale,
without obtaining the approval of the
Endowment Commissioner, the Deputy
Commissioner granted the said scale. It is in
the context the Endowment Commissioner
initiated suo motu proceedings and stayed the
said order. The order which was stayed was
passed by the Deputy Commissioner who is the
Muzarai Officer and the Endowment
Commissioner is the appellate/revisional
authority against such order. Whether the said
order is passed in connection with the
management of the temple or in connection with
the management of the school, it is an order
passed by a Muzarai Officer which is amenable
for scrutiny by the Endowment Commissioner.
In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that
the order passed by the Endowment
Commissioner is one without jurisdiction.
7. In so far as the merits is concerned,
when admittedly the institution is not admitted
to grant in aid and there is no legal obligation to
extend the UGC scale and when such scale is to
be extended the approval of the Commissioner
is a condition precedent, the order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner without obtaining the
approval of Endowment Commissioner is void ab
initio and the Endowment Commissioner was
fully justified in setting aside the said order.
8. Admittedly, the college run by
Sri.Kukke Subramanya Temple is admitted to
grant in aid and, therefore, the UGC scale has
been extended. Therefore, there is no
discrimination as alleged, as the two institutions
are not similarly placed.
9. In so far as the contention even if
aid is not extended, the temple is a Muzarai
temple belonging to the Government is
concerned, it would not make the temple or the
college run by the temple, a Government and
the petitioners Government employees.
However, it is always open to the petitioners to
approach the appropriate authorities for the
relief of extension of revision of UGC pay scale
of 2002 and it is only thereafter the said pay
scale could be extended in accordance with law."
(underlining by us)
14. Thus, as could be seen from the said order,
this Court categorically recorded a finding that though
the Institution was under no obligation to extend the
UGC pay scales, it had, nevertheless, extended the UGC
pay scales in the year 1994 and merely because the UGC
pay scales were made applicable, the revision of UGC
pay scales could not be made automatically applicable to
the Lecturers.
15. This Court also held that to take a decision to
extend the UGC pay scales, the approval of the
Endowment Commissioner was a condition precedent
and the order of the Deputy Commissioner without
obtaining such approval was void ab initio and therefore
the Endowment Commissioner was justified in setting
aside the order.
16. This Court, however, observed that it was
open to the lecturers to approach the appropriate
authority for the relief of extension of revision of UGC
pay scales of 2002 and if an appropriate decision in that
regard was taken, they would be eligible for the revised
UGC pay scales.
17. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the
appellants submitted a representation on 23.01.2006
and sought for extension of revised UGC pay scales.
18. The Endowment Commissioner, on
consideration of the said representation, proceeded to
pass an order on 05.04.2006 extending the revised UGC
pay scales. This order has been produced as Annexure-L
to W.P.Nos.8044-45/2010.
19. The Endowment Commissioner noticed that
the lecturers were in fact getting UGC pay scales for
more than 12 years and since in the appointment order
of the lecturers, there was a reference to UGC pay
scales, they were entitled for extension of the revised
pay scales.
20. This order of the Endowment Commissioner
was objected to by the Administrator of the Temple.
Representations in that regard were submitted to the
Government. The Government, by communication dated
04.07.2006, sought for certain clarifications and also a
report regarding implementation of the order of the
Endowment Commissioner dated 05.04.2006. The
Administrator of the Temple submitted two more
representations to the Government in that regard.
21. It is apparent from the representations
submitted by the Administrator that the extension of the
revised UGC pay scales was not being readily acceded to
by the Administrator
22. The Government, however, by a
communication dated 28.07.2006 directed the
Administrator of the Temple to implement the order of
the Endowment Commissioner and the same has been
produced as Annexure-T to W.P.No.8044-45/2010.
23. This order of the Endowment Commissioner
and the direction of the Government to implement the
order were not challenged by the Administrator of the
Temple.
24. However, this order was challenged by a
devotee called Sri P.Sudarshan Bhat in
W.P.No.14196/2006. In the said writ petition, it was
stated that certain respondents in that writ petition had
given a representation restricting their claim only to
Government pay scales and had given up their claim for
revised UGC pay scales and the Management of the
Temple had also recommended to the Endowment
Commissioner to modify the order dated 05.04.2006 by
which revised UGC pay scales were extended to all the
lecturers.
25. This Court, taking note of this development
and without going into other aspects of the matter,
directed the Endowment Commissioner to pass
appropriate orders on the basis of the representation
made by respondents 6, 8 to 13 and 15 therein.
26. The Endowment Commissioner, pursuant to
the said order, however, proceeded to pass an order by
which he stated that extension of UGC pay scales only to
two lecturers would be inequitable and therefore
proceeded to hold that all the lecturers would only be
entitled to State Government pay scales instead of UGC
pay scales.
27. This order of the Endowment Commissioner
dated 15.03.2008 was impugned before this Court in
W.P.No.6605/2008.This Court by order dated
20.11.2009 passed in W.P.No.6605/2008 quashed the
decision of the Endowment Commissioner extending only
the State Government pay scales instead of UGC pay
scales and this Court directed the Endowment
Commissioner to consider the representation of the
appellants herein and to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. This Court while passing the said
order observed as follows:
"4. Indisputably the challenge to the
order dated:5.4.2006 of the 2nd respondent
extending the benefit of revised UGC Pay Scales
to the Principal and lecturers of the educational
institution run by the 4th respondent-temple was
not set-aside by order Annexure-G in
W.P.No.14196/2006. In fact the rights of the
petitioners arraigned as respondents 7 and 14 in
the said writ petition stood intact without being
disturbed, so as to entitle the petitioners to the
revised UGC Pay scale. The learned Single
Judge having noticed the fact that the
petitioners arraigned as respondents 7 and 14
did not seek or make a representation for
change of Pay Scales from revised UGC to that
of State Govt. pay scale, refrained from
directing the 2nd respondent to consider the
representation of the other lecturers for change
of the pay scales from revised UGC to State
Govt. The direction issued by the learned Single
Judge was to consider the representation of all
other lecturers for change of pay scale to State
Govt. pay scale and therefore, the order
withdrawing the earlier order dated:05.04.2006
extending the benefit of revision of UGC pay
scales to the petitioners, without notice,
tantamounts to violation of principles of natural
justice and therefore, is unsustainable.
6. The representation Annexure-H of
the petitioners was for payment of the salaries
in terms of the revised UGC pay scale together
with consequential monetary benefits and
therefore, that representation could not be
treated as a representation for change of pay
scale from revised UGC to State Govt.,
disentitling the 2nd respondent to recall the order
dt.5.4.2008 extending the revised UGC Pay
Scale to the petitioners.
7. In the light of the specific direction
issued by this court in the order Annexure-G,
the 2nd respondent was not justified in recalling
the order dated:5.4.2006 granting approval to
extend the benefit of revised UGC pay scale
insofar as the petitioners are concerned."
28. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court,
the Endowment Commissioner by his order dated
12.12.2009 recalled his earlier order dated 15.03.2008
extending only the State Government pay scales and
restored his earlier order dated 05.04.2006 by which
revised UGC pay scales had been extended from
01.11.2002.
29. This order of the Endowment Commissioner
was not challenged by the Institution.
30. This was, however, challenged in the year
2010 by Sri Vasudeva Asaranna and Sri Srihari
Narayanadasa Asaranna, who claimed to be hereditary
Archaks, in W.P.Nos.8044-8045/2010.
31. Nearly nine years after passing of the order
by the Endowment Commissioner, one person claiming
to be the hereditary Trustee filed W.P.No.10964/2018 on
behalf of the Institution i.e., Sri Durga Parameshwari
Temple.
32. These writ petitions were clubbed together
and one of the main contentions advanced by the
lecturers were that the writ petitioners therein had no
locus standi to file the said writ petitions questioning
grant of service benefits. The lecturers also contended
that their entitlement to revised UGC pay scales could
not be called in question since the Institution had
recommended it and the Endowment Commissioner
being the competent authority had also approved the
same.
33. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned
order, came to the conclusion that the writ petitions
could not be rejected on the ground that petitioners had
no locus standi and on delay. The learned Single Judge
also came to the conclusion that the Government itself
had opined that UGC pay scales could not be granted to
the lecturers and therefore, the Endowment
Commissioner could not have exceeded his jurisdiction in
passing a decision contrary to the decision of the
Government. The learned Single Judge accordingly
allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the order of
the Endowment Commissioner by which revised UGC pay
scales were extended to the appellants.
34. It is this order of the learned Single Judge
which is impugned in these writ appeals by the two
lecturers to whom the revised UGC pay scales had been
extended.
35. Sri K.Govindraj and Sri Kamath, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the
writ petitioners could not have maintained the writ
petitions since the orders impugned in the writ petitions
were service benefits granted to the employees. They
contended that two Archaks of the temple did not
possess the locus to challenge the decision taken by the
Managing Committee and the Endowment Commissioner
regarding grant of service benefits to the employees of a
Institution being run by the Temple.
36. They also contended that the writ petition
filed nearly after nine years of passing of the order by
the Endowment Commissioner could not have been
entertained since the writ petition was filed by a person
who claimed to be a Trustee. They further submitted that
the alleged Trusteeship of the writ petitioner was the
subject matter of another proceedings before the
Endowment Commissioner and until that proceedings
ended in favour of the writ petitioner, he could not have
filed W.P.No.10964/2018.
37. On merits, learned counsel for the appellants
contended that it was not in dispute that the appellants
were extended UGC pay scales way back in the year
1994. They contended that the Administrator had
recommended to the Deputy Commissioner to extend
the revised UGC pay scales in the year 2001 itself and
the Deputy Commissioner also had recommended
extension of revised UGC pay scales in the year 2002. It
is submitted that the said recommendation was set aside
by the Endowment Commissioner on the technical
ground that the UGC pay scales could not have been
extended without prior approval of the Endowment
Commissioner.
38. They contended that appellants had
challenged the said order of the Endowment
Commissioner and this Court while upholding the order
of the Endowment Commissioner had categorically held
that it was open for the lecturers to make a
representation for extension of revised UGC pay scales
and the lecturers on the basis of said liberty reserved in
their favour had submitted a representation and sought
for extension of revised UGC pay scales.
39. They submitted that the Endowment
Commissioner, on consideration of the entire matter,
came to the conclusion that the lecturers/appellants
herein were entitled for being extended the revised UGC
pay scales and this order of the Endowment
Commissioner was not challenged by the Institution or
by the Management.
40. They further contended that the attempt by
the Endowment Commissioner, subsequently, to recall
the order dated 05.04.2006 extending the revised UGC
pay scales and conferring only State Government pay
scales was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008
and pursuant to order passed in the said writ petition,
the Endowment Commissioner had passed an order
upholding his earlier order of extending revised UGC pay
scales. They submitted that this order of the
Endowment Commissioner being based on the
recommendation of the Administrator and not being
opposed by the Management could not be challenged by
the hereditary Archaks or by the person claiming to be a
hereditary Trustee.
41. Sri P.S.Rajagopal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners contended
that the writ petitioners were the hereditary Archaks and
a hereditary Trustee and they possessed sufficient locus
to maintain the writ petitions since they were vitally
interested in the affairs of the Temple. Learned senior
counsel also submitted that extension of UGC pay scales
to the lecturers was without any factual basis.
42. He submitted that the Institution was under
no legal obligation to extend either UGC pay scales or
the revised UGC pay scales. He submitted that the
Institution was admittedly paying the State Government
pay scales to the lecturers and the lecturers could not
therefore be aggrieved by non-extension of UGC pay
scales. He submitted that UGC pay scales could be
extended only on the basis of some legal right and since
the lecturers had no legal right to claim UGC pay scales,
the decision of the learned Single Judge could not be
interfered with.
43. We have considered the respective
submissions of learned counsel on both sides and
perused the material on record.
44. The only question that arises for consideration
in these writ appeals is:
Whether the lecturers/appellants
would be entitled for extension of revised
UGC pay scales?
What order?
45. Before going into the merits of the matter, we
wish to state that we are consciously not going into the
question as to whether hereditary Archaks and an
alleged hereditary Trustee have locus standi to question
the orders granting certain benefits to the employees of
the Institution and we are deciding the entitlement of the
appellants on merits so as to give the matter a rest.
Hence, nothing stated in our order shall be construed as
accepting the status of the writ petitioners as either
hereditary Archaks or as the alleged hereditary Trustee.
46. Firstly, as far as the entitlement of the
appellants to UGC pay scales in concerned, in light of the
clear finding recorded by this Court in
W.P.No.46833/2004 connected with W.P.No.48831/2004
that Institution though under no obligation to extend the
UGC pay scales had extended UGC pay scales in the year
1994, it cannot now be in dispute that the lecturers had
in fact been extended UGC pay scales way back in the
year 1994 itself.
47. It is also not in dispute that revised UGC pay
scales were extended to them on the basis of an order of
the Deputy Commissioner. This order of the Deputy
Commissioner, however, had been held to be illegal by
the Endowment Commissioner only on the ground that
the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed
without prior approval of the Endowment Commissioner.
48. This Court in W.P.No.46833/2004 while
upholding the order of the Endowment Commissioner
clearly and categorically stated that it was always open
for the lecturers to approach the appropriate authorities
seeking for extension of revised UGC pay scales and if
the lecturers obtained such an approval, they would be
entitled to revised UGC pay scales.
49. This Court also noticed that the Administrator
of the Temple had in fact recommended for extension of
revised UGC pay scales and it is only because prior
approval of the Endowment Commissioner was not
obtained, the extension of revised UGC pay scales could
not be granted to them.
50. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order
passed by this Court, a representation was submitted by
the lecturers and this representation found favour with
the Endowment Commissioner and an order was passed
extending the revised UGC pay scales.
51. Thus, the technical requirement, as pointed
out by this Court, of obtaining prior approval of the
Endowment Commissioner was satisfied by the passing
of an order by the Endowment Commissioner on
05.04.2006.
52. In light of the fact that the Administrator of
the Temple recommended extension of revised UGC pay
scales and the Endowment Commissioner had granted
prior approval for this extension, it is clear that the
appellants became entitled to the revised UGC pay
scales.
53. This order of prior approval granted by the
Endowment Commissioner was affirmed by the
Government despite the representations submitted by
the Institution. The Government, by its communication
dated 28.07.2006 categorically directed the
Administrator of the Temple to implement the order of
the Endowment Commissioner dated 05.04.2006. The
order dated 28.07.2006 makes it clear that the
Government also took the view that the appellants were
entitled to the revised UGC pay scales.
54. Admittedly, the order of the Government
dated 28.7.2006, directing implementation of the order
of the Endowment Commissioner dated 05.04.2006
extending revised UGC pay scales, was not challenged by
the Institution at all and had thus attained finality.
55. The order of the Endowment Commissioner
and its affirmation by the Government was challenged
only by a devotee in W.P.No.14196/2006.
56. However, in the said writ petition, the
decision of the Endowment Commissioner and its
affirmation by the Government was not disturbed and
the only point considered in the said writ petition was
that the Endowment Commissioner was required to
consider modifying his order in view of the fact that
certain lecturers had given up their claim for the revised
UGC pay scales.
57. The Endowment Commissioner, instead of
confining the extension of revised UGC pay scales only to
those lecturers who had not withdrawn their claim,
proceeded to pass an order extending the State
Government pay scales to all the lecturers and thereby
reversing his earlier order extending the revised UGC
pay scales to all the lecturers.
58. Admittedly, this order of the Endowment
Commissioner was set at naught by this Court in
W.P.No.6605/2008 at the instance of the appellants
herein and this order passed was not at all challenged by
the Institution. Thus, the extension of revised UGC pay
scales, insofar as the Institution was concerned, became
final on the basis of the order passed in
W.P.No.6605/2008 by which the order of the Endowment
Commissioner to extend only the State Government pay
scales was set aside.
59. The Endowment Commissioner, pursuant to
the order passed in W.P.No.6605/2008, proceeded to
extend the revised UGC pay scales to the appellants
alone since they were the only lecturers who had not
given up their claim.
60. In other words, the Endowment Commissioner
restored his earlier order dated 05.04.2006 extending
the revised UGC pay scales, by recalling the order
passed on 15.03.2008, by which he had extended only
the State Government pay scales. This order was based
on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008.
61. The order of this Court passed in WP
6605/2008 and the subsequent order of Endowment
Commissioner restoring the extension of the revised UGC
pay scales was accepted by the Institution. Thus, the
entitlement of the appellants to the revised UGC pay
scales became final and conclusive as far as the
institution was concerned.
62. Since the Institution had accepted the order
of the Endowment Commissioner and the order passed
by this Court in W.P.No.6605/2008, in our view, the
challenge made by two hereditary Archaks and a
Trustee, to the order of the Endowment Commissioner
passed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.6605/2008 cannot be sustained.
63. Be that as it may. Learned Single Judge in
the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the
Government had opined that the appellants were not
entitled to revised UGC pay scales. This observation is
obviously not correct.
64. As narrated above, the Endowment
Commissioner granted prior approval for extension of
revised UGC pay scales and as the Administrator of the
Temple had himself recommended for extension of
revised UGC pay scales, the appellants would thus legally
be entitled to the said benefit.
65. Further more, after the passing of the order
by the Endowment Commissioner, certain
representations were submitted to the Government by
the Administrator and the Government by its
communication dated 28.07.2006 confirmed the prior
approval granted by the Endowment Commissioner and
directed its implementation i.e., the extension of the
revised UGC pay scales.
66. In light of this direction of the Government
dated 28.07.2006, as evidenced by Annexure-T to
W.P.Nos.8044-8045/2010, the decision of the learned
Single Judge that the State Government had opined that
the appellants were not entitled for revised UGC pay
scales is incorrect and cannot be sustained.
67. It cannot be in dispute that the Government
had itself affirmed the prior approval granted by the
Endowment Commissioner for extension of revised UGC
pay scales by its order dated 28.7.2006. Further, this
Court in W.P.No.6605/2008 set at naught the
subsequent decision of the Endowment Commissioner
dated 15.03.2008 extending only State pay scales and
this order has become final in so far as the institution is
concerned.
68. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in
WP.No.6605/2008, the Endowment Commissioner also
proceeded to restore his order dated 05.04.2006 by
which he had extended the revised UGC pay scales to
the appellants. In light of these indisputable facts, the
appellants, in our view, would be legally entitled for
extension of the revised UGC pay scales.
69. We are, therefore, of the view that the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge in coming to the
conclusion that the appellants were not entitled for
extension of revised UGC pay scales cannot be accepted.
We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petitions.
70. As a consequence, we hold that the appellants
would be entitled for extension of revised UGC pay scales
and direct that the benefits that have accrued to them
pursuant to the order of the Endowments Commissioner
dated 05.04.2006 be given to them within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment.
Writ Appeals are accordingly allowed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
