Sri. Gunti Banu Prasad vs The Government Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1967 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.10306/2019 (S - RES)


BETWEEN

SRI. GUNTI BANU PRASAD
S/O THE LATE G.SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RETIRED SELECTION GRADE LECTURER,
SCIENCE DEPARTMENT,
H.M.S. POLYTECHNIC,
TUMAKURU - 572 103
NOW R/AT NO.SAI VENKTA NIVAS, JAYANAGARA EAST,
TUMAKURU - 572 103.
                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))


AND

1.    THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
      MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
      VIDHANA SOUDHA,
      DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
      BENGALURU - 560 001
      REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
      (DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION)

2.    THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
      THANTHRIKA BHAVAN
      PALACE ROAD,
                                 2




      BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.    THE PRINCIPAL
      M/S. H.M.S. POLYTECHNIC
      TUMAKURU - 572 103.
                                                ... 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 DECLARE THAT
THE KARNATAKA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (RECRUITMENT
AND TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN AIDED COLLEGES
OF EDUCATION, TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTIONS) ACT ARE
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA ON THE GROUND OF DENYING EQUAL PAY TO EQUAL WORK
AND DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
AND    THE   EMPLOYEES    OF        THE   PRIVATE   EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS WITHOUT ANY BASIS.



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

                             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 him

prior to the admission of the Institution, where he is working,

to grant in aid.

2. The petitioner in the writ petition was appointed as a

lecturer on 05.02.2011, to a teaching post in

H.M.S.Polytechnic, 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

nvj CT:MJ