Karnataka High Court
Mohd. Maslehuddin vs The Prl.Secretary And Ors on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.No.204746/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MOHD. MASLEHUDDIN
S/O MOHD. DAWOOD ALI
AGE: 57 YEARS
R/O: C/O: HAJI KAMARODDIN
OPP: KARNATAKA LAW COLLEGE
BIDAR-585 401.
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. NITESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. THE PRL. SECRETARY
PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-01.
02. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
03. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
BIDAR-585 401.
2
04. BHARAT EDUCATION SOCIETY
HUMANABAD - 585 330
DIST: BIDAR.
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT.
05. SRI. RAMKRISHNA HIGH SCHOOL
(URDU & MARATHI MEDIUM)
GHODAWADI - 585 418
TQ: HUMANABAD
DIST: BIDAR, THROUGH ITS HEAD MASTER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP
FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI. M. SUDHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO TREAT THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN APPOINTED ON
22.05.1999 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO PERMIT HIM TO CONTINUE IN SERVICE AS USUAL TILL HE
ATTAINS THE SUPERANNUATION I.E., ON 31.06.2019, B) ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
RECKON THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM 22.05.1999
TILL 11.02.2014 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ETC.,
TILL HE ATTAINS THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
- B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of
mandamus against the respondents to treat his date of
appointment as 22.05.1999 and permit him to continue his
service till 31.06.2019. This prayer is based on the
contention that the petitioner was appointed on
22.05.1999 and he will attain the age of superannuation
on 31.06.2019 on the premise that he was born on
15.06.1959.
02. To substantiate the contention of the petitioner
that he was born on 15.06.1959, the petitioner has
produced the decree passed in O.S.No.140/2002 on the
file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) at Bidar, in terms of
decree dated 19.04.2003. The Court has declared the date
of birth of the petitioner as 15.06.1959. It is forthcoming
from the decree that SSLC marks card of the petitioner
would reveal the date of birth of petitioner is 15.06.1956
and transfer certificate of the petitioner would reveal that
the date of birth of petitioner is 15.06.1959. In the
judgment at Para No.13, the Court has granted the decree
on the ground that the petitioner shall not take any
advantage in his job and service benefits based on the
corrected date of birth.
03. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not
entitled to claim the date of birth as 15.06.1959 for the
purpose of claiming service benefits. His date birth is
15.06.1956 for the purpose of calculating the service
benefits.
04. It is also submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that he was appointed on 25.05.1999. To
support his contention he has placed reliance on the
appointment order dated 13.10.2008, where the
appointment of petitioner in the respondent No.4 -
institution is approved. The approval order dated
13.10.2008 would reveal that the petitioner was appointed
on 22.05.1999. Based on this it is urged that the State is
not willing to grant the service benefits reckoning his
services from 22.05.1999. And it is his submission that the
for calculating service benefits 22nd May 1999 is to be
considered as the date of appointment of the petitioner.
05. Opposing the claim of the petitioner, the
learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that
though the petitioner was appointed on 22.05.1999, he
was admitted to grant-in-aid vide order dated 11.02.2014
in terms of Annexure-C.
06. It is also submission of the learned High Court
Government Pleader that issue relating to the service
benefits payable to the employees who are admitted to
grant-in-aid, subsequent to the date of appointment, is
pending consideration in W.A.No.2476/2015. It is also
submitted that the State would extend the benefit of the
decision in the aforesaid matter to the petitioner, in the
event of the decision in the aforesaid matter, goes in
favour of the employees.
07. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is
allowed in part.
I. The petitioner is entitled to service benefits treating
his date of appointment as 22.05.1999 subject to the
decision in aforementioned W.A.No.2476/2015.
II. The prayer relating to declaration of the petitioner's
the date of birth as 15.06.1956 is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
