Devaraj vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1963 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

           WRIT PETITION No.40479/2018 (S - RES)

BETWEEN


1.   DEVARAJ
     S/O SAGANAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
     OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER,
     GOWTHAMA HIGH SCHOOL,
     VASTHARE,
     CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

2.   SRI RENUKA P.,
     S/O PUTTASWAMY SHETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     OCC: GROUP-D, EMPLOYEE,
     W/A: SSR DEMONSTRATION HIGH SCHOOL,
     JYOTHINAGAR,
     CHIKKAMAGALURU.

3.   SRI RAKESH K.M.,
     S/O MANJASHETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     OCC:GROUP- D EMPLOYEE,
     W/A: SADGURU HIGH SCHOOL,
     BASARIKATTE, KOPPA TALUK,
     CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

4.   SRI KRISHNAMURTHY
     S/O RANGASHETTY
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                              2




      OCC: GROUP- D EMPLOYEE,
      W/A: GRAMA JYOTHI
      HIGH SCHOOL, LAKKAVALLI,
      TARIKERE TALUK
      CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
                                           ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR G.M., ADVOCATE
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND
      SECONDARY EDUCATION,
      M.S.BUILDING,
      DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
      BENGALURU - 560 001
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2.    THE COMMISSIONER
      PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
      NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
      CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
      CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THEIR SERVICE
BENEFITS IN TERMS OF THE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS DTD
20.04.2011  PASSED     IN  W.P.NO.5575/2009  AND   OTHER
CONNECTED PETITIONS AND ORDER DTD 03.11.2009 IN
                                    3




W.A.NO.450/2009 VIDE ANNX-H AND J RESPECTIVELY AND
ORDER DTD 21.08.2013 PASSED IN SLP NO.22176/2010 VIDE
ANNX-K AND ETC.,

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                 ORDER

The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a

direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondent authorities-State to pay them

benefits by considering their past service rendered in the

Institution at the time when the Institution was yet to get

itself admitted to grant at the hands of the State by following

the order dated 20.04.2011 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench

in writ petition No.5575/2009 and other connected petitions

and the judgment dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned

Division Bench in writ appeal No.450/2009. Against which a

Special Leave Petition No.22176/2010 was preferred before

the Apex Court only to be dismissed by order dated

21.08.2013.

2. After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition

before the Apex Court in SLP No.22176/2010, the State

notified a validating Act as the Karnataka Private Aided

Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay,

Pension and other Benefits) Act, 2014 (Karnataka Act

No.07/2014) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act No.07/2014)

taking away the benefits of the judgment rendered by the

Division Bench. The said Act came to be challenged before

this Court in several writ petitions. This Court by its order

dated 10.07.2015 in writ petition No.21216/2014 and

connected petitions has struck down Act No.07/2014 as

unconstitutional as it was promulgated only to take away the

benefits of the judgment rendered granting certain benefits to

the employees. The petitioners' claim to be similarly situated

like those who were the petitioners in the case rendered

judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

Supra.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate though

would accept the striking down of Act No.07/2014 and the

earlier orders/judgments rendered by this Court, would

however contend that the case is at large before the Division

Bench in W.A.No.2476/2015 and would submit that the writ

petition will have to await the decision of the said writ appeal

pending before the 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 petitioners are 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

petitioners in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nvj CT:MJ