C N Manjappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1411 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

                W.A.No.273/2021 (S - RES)

BETWEEN :

C.N.MANJAPPA
S/O C.M.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
WORKED AS LECTURER IN LAW
VIDYAVARDHAKA LAW COLLEGE
SHESHADRI IYER ROAD
MYSORE-570 021
R/AT CHANNIGANATHOTA
HONNESARA
SAGAR-SHIVAMOGGA-577417                      ...APPELLANT

                  (BY SRI B.K.MOHAN, ADV.)

AND :

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        DEPT. OF EDUCATION (HIGHER EDUCATION)
        DEPT. OF LAW JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
        VIDHANA SOUDHA
        MULTISTORIED BUILDING
        Dr. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
        BANGALORE-560 001
        REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2.      THE COMMISSIONER
        DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
        PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
                                  -2-




3.    THE SECRETARY
      VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA (R)
      SHESHADRI IYER ROAD,
      MYSORE-570 021

4.    THE PRINCIPAL
      VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA (R)
      SHESHADRI IYER ROAD,
      MYSORE-570 021

5.    THE REGISTRAR
      KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
      NAVANAGARA, HUBLI-580 025                ...RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI SHASHIKUMAR G.V., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
     SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4; R-5 SERVED.)

      THIS   W.A.   IS   FILED    UNDER    SECTION   4   OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO i)SET ASIDE THE
ORDER    PASSED     BY   THE     LEARNED    SINGLE   JUDGE     IN
W.P.NO.39562/2018 DATED 08.01.2021 ii)ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN W.P.NO.39562/2018
AND TO GRANT RELIEF AS SOUGHT THEREIN AND ETC.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal is directed against the

order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.39562/2018, whereby the writ petition

filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed.

2. The appellant has preferred the writ petition

seeking for a declaration that he is entitled to the pay-

scales which are admissible to the post of Lecturer in

Government Law College inter alia for a direction to the

respondents to pay the arrears of salary i.e.,

Rs.55,51,452/-.

3. The appellant claimed that he joined the

services of the fourth respondent - Vidyavardhaka Law

College on 02.08.1987 pursuant to selection as lecturer

on a particular pay-scale. Based on an order passed by

this Court in W.A.No.1637/2006 and connected matters

(D.D. 17.09.2007) on the strength of a joint memo, the

appellant made a representation before the fourth

respondent seeking for pay-scale corresponding to the

pay-scale of the Government Teachers and for the

arrears of salary, which was not acceded to. Hence, the

appellant approached the writ Court. Learned Single

Judge having considered the inordinate delay of 24

years in giving a representation found that the claim

made by the appellant cannot be appreciated. Hence,

dismissed the writ petition.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is

before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating

the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Writ Appeal

submitted that the appellant was repeatedly requesting

the fourth respondent for fixing the pay-scale on par

with the Government Teachers. Without appreciating

the same, merely on the ground of delay, the learned

Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The pay-

scale fixed on par with the Government Teachers to the

other colleagues of the appellant having not been

extended to the appellant, on the ground of

discrimination which is anathema to the right of

equality, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed

the writ petition. On these grounds, learned counsel

seeks for interference of this Court.

6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the

following judgments:-

1. S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana and others (AIR 2008 SC 1077);

2. M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1996 SC 669).

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and perused the material on record.

8. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant was

functioning in the fourth respondent's Institution from

02.08.1987 without airing any voice on the pay scale

fixed by the institution. It is based on the order passed

in W.A.No.1637/2006 and connected matters, supra,

the appellant moved before the fourth respondent for

the first time in the year 2011 seeking arrears of salary

of Rs.55,51,452/-. The said writ appeal was disposed of

on the basis of a joint memo which is not applicable to

the appellant. It is trite that the aggrieved party has to

approach the Court within a reasonable period for

redressal of grievance. The inordinate delay of 24 years

caused in seeking for arrears of salary re-fixing the pay-

scale on par with the Government Teachers would run

fatal to the case.

9. It is settled legal principle that the Courts

can come to the rescue of the litigant who is vigilant

about his rights but not to a person who sleeps over a

matter and rises from the slumber like a phoenix when

he had the impetus from the writ appeal, supra. The

delay and laches in making the claim being ex-facie

apparent, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the

petition. No exception can be found with the same.

10. In S.K. Dua, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court

was dealing with the entitlement of retiral benefits in

the case of appellant therein who had completed more

than three decades in Government service in the context

of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the

appellant and dropped later on. In such background, it

has been held that the appellant would be entitled to

interest on retiral benefits.

11. In M.R. Gupta, supra, fixation of pay-scale

not in accordance with the rules being assertion of a

continuing law is held to be recurring cause of action.

For recovery of arrears for the past period is held to be

not permissible.

12. In the present case, the claim is based only

on the order of this Court in W.A.No.1637/2006 and

connected matters, supra, which was disposed of on a

joint memos. The pay fixation made on the basis of the

situation existing on the date of joining the service by

the appellant cannot be considered for re-fixation after

about 24 years of appointment especially, when the

appellant is relived from services with the respondent

Nos.3 and 4 from 22.06.2012. Hence, in our considered

view, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel

for the appellant would not be applicable to the facts of

the present case.

13. We find no jurisdictional error in the order

impugned.

In the result, writ appeal stands dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE

PMR