Karnataka High Court
Shri T M Vijayakumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 August, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 100438 OF 2023 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. T M VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. RTD. PRINCIPAL,
T.M.A.E.S. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
HOSPET, AT. T M A E S POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMESH C AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
MINISTRY OF LAW & PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
VISHAL 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 3. THE PRINCIPAL T M A E S POLYTECHNIC (AIDED),
Digitally signed by HOSPET-583201.
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL ... RESPONDENTS
Date: 2023.08.08
11:05:32 +0530 (BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R2; R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3(1) AND (2) OF THE KARNATAKA
PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EMPLOYEES
REGULATION OF PAY, PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS) ACT 2014
(KARNATAKA ACT 7 OF 2014) DATED 12/02/2014 NO. ¸ÀA. ªÀå±ÁE.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
60 ±Á¸À£À 2013 BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSEQUENTLY STRUCK
DOWN THE SAID PROVISIONS AS ULTRA VIRUS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for
the following reliefs:
"i) Declare the provisions of Section
3(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Private Aided
Educational Institutions Employees Regulation
of pay, Pension and other Benefits) Act 2014
(Karnataka Act 7 of 2014) dated 12/02/2014
No. ¸ÀA. ªÀå±ÁE. 60 ±Á¸À£À 2013 Bengaluru vide
Annexure-G passed by the 1st respondent as
unconstitutional and consequently struck down
the said provisions as ultra virus of the
Constitution of India.
ii) Issue any other order or direction as this
Hon'ble court deems fit, just and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the case
and allow the petition with exemplary cost, in
the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
3. The petitioner joins the services of the fifth
respondent - Institution on 16.07.1984. The Institution is
admitted to grant on 5.2.2001. The issue is whether the
period between 16.07.1984 to 5.2.2001 should be
reckoned for the purpose of calculation of the service
benefits to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the issue in the lis is pending consideration before the
Division Bench for it having been answered in favour of
the Teachers. In an order passed in the case of Shri
Manjunath K.R. S/o. Late Krishnaraje Urs Vs. The
State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.519/2021,
disposed of on 10th February 2021, noticing the fact that
the matter is pending consideration before the Division
Bench, this Court in identical circumstances has passed
the following order:
"2. The petitioner in the writ petition was
appointed as Lecture in Geography of a private aided
educational institution to teaching post. He contend
that his claim is covered in terms of order dated
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
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
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
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
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
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."
5. Further, in the case of Sri A. Srikantegowda
S/o. Appajigowda Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P.
No.3443/2021, disposed off on 18th February 2021,
wherein this Court had disposed off the petition by
observing as follows:
"2. The petitioner in the writ petition was
appointed as a Lecturer on 17.06.1991, to a
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
teaching post in Sri. Sardar Vallabhabai Patel PU
College, 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
passedin 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
heldas follows:
"4. But in order to overcome the
judgments of this Court, the State had
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
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
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
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."
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175
WP No. 100438 of 2023
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."
6. Since the petitioner is similarly situated and the
issue is also similar, the writ petition would stand disposed
off in terms of aforequoted orders with the direction to the
State to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vb/Ct:Bck
