Karnataka High Court
The State Of Kar Rep By Its Pri Secr ... vs M N Sannubai on 10 January, 2023
Bench: K.Somashekar, Umesh M Adiga
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
W.P.NO.105100/2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION) GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, M.S.
BUILDING,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEDHI, BENGALURU
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date:
2023.01.13
10:58:23 +0530
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION),
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
4. THE HEAD MASTER
SRI GURUSHANTESHWARA GOVERNMENT JUNIOR
COMPOSITE COLLEGE, SAHAWADI NAVALGUND
TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
2
(BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI.M N SANNUBAI
77 YEARS, S/O HUSSAIN SAB,
RETIRED AS HINDI TEACHER
R/O SHALAWADI, NAVALGUND TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.C.S.PATIL, ADV. FOR SRI.RAJASHEKAR
R.GUNJALLI, FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ISSUE A
WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO. 10254 OF
2021 (ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.01.2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, UMESH M
ADIGA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order
passed in Application No.10254/2021 dated
22.04.2022 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal,
Belagavi by the respondents in the said case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent
herein has filed Application No.10254/2021 praying to
quash of the endorsement No.E1/NYAYALAYA
PRA/K.A.T.6921/2001/2010-11/469 DATED
18.06.2020 issued by petitioner No.3, denying certain
benefits of the salary. The KAT after hearing both the
sides, has passed impugned order and allowed claim
of the respondent. The same is challenged by the
petitioners who were respondents before the KAT on
various grounds.
3. We have heard the arguments of the
learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for
the respondent.
4. Learned Government Advocate
Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar vehemently contended that KAT
has not at all appreciated the documents and other
materials placed on record by the petitioners. The KAT
has also not considered condition No.5 of the
Government notification dated 28.03.2007 under
which, respondent was absolved into service. It was
also not considered by the KAT that respondent had
not challenged the said condition No.5 of the
notification. The KAT has not at all considered
submissions of the respondents before it and also not
considered the other materials placed on record. On
the contrary, it has allowed the application on the sole
ground that appellants have not challenged the order
passed in Application No.3076/2016. Therefore, the
impugned order is not sustainable and it is not in
accordance with law and hence, prayed to set aside
the order.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent
supported the order passed by the KAT.
6. We anxiously considered the contentions of
both the parties and perused the records.
7. It is an unfortunate litigation of a teacher
who served in the educational institution from 1986
and retired from service on superannuation w.e.f.
30.06.2018 to claim his salary and service benefits. It
is a third round of litigation for fixation of his salary
and to claim other service benefits. Respondent was
appointed as Hindi Teacher on part time basis in the
year 1986. During the year 1998 his salary was fixed
on full time basis and he was regularized in service on
28.03.2007, on the basis of the law laid down by this
court in W.P.Nos.1890-1895/2010 (S-RES).
Respondent had claimed said benefit and on that basis
his service was also regularized with certain
conditions.
8. Respondent had filed Application
No.6921/2001 before the KAT for claiming service
benefits as well as pay fixation. Said application was
allowed and certain directions were issued by the KAT
by its order dated 09.04.2015. Petitioners have not
complied the said order and hence, respondent has
filed representation dated 26.04.2015 on the basis of
the said order, with petitioner No.3. The appointing
authority by reconsidering the records, passed an
order dated 08.06.2015 fixed the pay and pay scale of
the respondent and same was paid from the date of
regularization i.e., from 14.08.1997. Thereafter, the
appointing authority by order dated 05.03.2016
withdrew the said order dated 08.06.2015 and passed
an order to recover the amount paid to the
respondent. Respondent has challenged the said order
in Application No.3076/2016 before KAT. The KAT
after hearing both the parties, passed an order dated
17.10.2019 and allowed the application of the
respondent. By the said order KAT set aside the order
dated 05.03.2016 and ordered to restore the order
passed fixing the pay scale and further ordered to
repay the amount which was already recovered from
the respondent by the petitioners. Petitioners herein
did not challenge the said order and it attained
finality.
9. Respondent has submitted representation
dated 14.05.2020 and 28.05.2020 furnishing the
detailed events and requested petitioner No.3 to
comply the order passed by the KAT and to repay the
amount recovered and also further mentioned that
since he was re-appointed as a full time teacher from
14.08.1997, by considering the said date of
appointment, time bound advancement, for having
completed 10 years of service from 14.08.2007 and to
extend pensionary benefits as per the order passed by
the KAT. Petitioner No.3 considering the said
representation has issued impugned endorsement
dated 18.06.2020, has rejected the contention of the
respondent to re-fix the pay and to pay other service
benefits.
10. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have
not challenged the order passed by the KAT in
Application No.3076/2016 dated 17.10.2019 and
instead of complying the said order have rejected the
representation of the respondent, which was made on
the basis of the orders passed by the KAT in
Application No.3076/2016. The impugned order
passed by petitioner No.3 based on some other
grounds to delay the order passed by the KAT dated
17.10.2019 are not tenable. The said rejection was
not bonafide order of petitioner No.3. If at all, the
petitioners have aggrieved by the orders passed by
the KAT, in Application No.3076/2016, then they
ought to have challenged the same before the
competent forum. Without taking to such recourse,
petitioner No.2 defied the order of KAT and the
impugned order passed by the petitioners denying the
payment of service benefits to the respondent is
illegal.
11. In the impugned judgment of KAT in
Application No.10254/2021 dated 22.04.2022 at para
No.5 and 6, the KAT has considered all the
contentions of both the parties and the KAT rightly
rejected the contention of the petitioners and granted
the relief by quashing the impugned endorsement
given by the petitioners. It does not call for any
interference by this court.
For the above said discussions, we pass
following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned
order passed by the KAT dated 22.04.2022 in
Application No.10254/2021 is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
