K Raja Reddy vs Bangalore University
2023 Latest Caselaw 6488 Kant

                                            -1-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:33218
                                                  WP No. 36989 of 2010




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                  DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 36989 OF 2010 (S-R)
            BETWEEN:

            1.    K RAJA REDDY
                  AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
                  S/O LATE K C OBUL REDDY,
                  JUNIOR ASSISTANT (RETIRED)
                  CENTER FOR ADULT EDUCATION,
                  BANGALORE UNIVERSITY.
                  R/AT NO.168, FIRST CROSS,
                  19TH WARD, KENCHENAHALLI
                  RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE 98.
                                                          ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. S V NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            1.    BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
Digitally         GNANA BHARATHI,
signed by         BANGALORE 560 056.
PANKAJA S
Location:          REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA   2.    THE FINANCE OFFICER
                  BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
                  GNANA BHARATHI, BANGALORE 560 056.

            3.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                  BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                  HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
                  (UNIVERSITY), M.S.BUILDING,
                  BANGALORE-1.
                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
            (BY SRI. B RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
                SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA FOR R-3)
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:33218
                                      WP No. 36989 of 2010




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO SANCTION & RELEASE THE PENSION &
PENSIONARY BENEFITS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF THE POST OF
JUNIOR ASST. HELD BY THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF
RETIRMENT BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ETC.

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

                          ORDER

1. This petition is filed seeking a direction to the

respondents to sanction and release the pension, and the

pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner in respect of

the post of a Junior Assistant, which was held by him at

the time of retirement. A direction is also sought to be

issued to the respondents to release the encashment of

240 days of earned leave and also for payment of interest

on this amount at the rate of 12% per annum.

2. The case of the petitioner was that he was appointed

as a Junior Assistant on 16.10.1994 initially for a period of

six months and this appointment order stated that he

would be entitled for duty on Rs.10/- less than the

minimum scale of pay of Rs.490-950 i.e., Rs.480/- per

month, which had been sanctioned to the post of

NC: 2023:KHC:33218 WP No. 36989 of 2010

Accountant / Typist - Clerk. It was also stated that his

services could be terminated at any time, without

assigning any reason.

3. The petitioner accepted the said appointment order

and reported for duty in the year 1984.

4. On 26.08.1983, the University extended to the

petitioner an equivalent revised pay-scale to the post of

Junior Assistant at Rs.10/- less the minimum of the pay

scale of Rs.960-1760 i.e., Rs.950/- and he was also

granted the usual allowances until further orders.

5. On 19.09.1984, the service of the petitioner was

regularized in terms of the order, which is produced as

Annexure 'C', and the same reads as follows:

"BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JNANA BHARATHI, Bangalore-56.

Sub: Regularisation of ServiceS of Sri.K.Raja Reddy, Junior Assistant, NAEP.

NC: 2023:KHC:33218 WP No. 36989 of 2010

Ref: Resolution of Syndicate meeting held on 9.8.94

***** U.O.NO.ESTI:E1:APT:89-90 DATED:19.09.1994 Pursuant to the resolution of the University Syndicate meeting held on 9-8- 94, the services of Sri.K.RajaReddy, are regularised as Junior Assistant, NAEP, in the pay scale of Rs.1040-20-1100-30- 1400-40-1800-50-1900 with usual allowances till the end of the NAEP project.

His pay shall be fixed notionally with effect from 1-4-87 in the corresponding scale existing then. However, monetary benefits are admissible with effect from 9- 8-94.

BY ORDER

Sd/-

Registrar.

To:

The concerned.

Copy to:

1. The Finance Officer, BUB,

2. The Director, NAEP, BUB,

3. Guard File,

4. SP/CC. "

6. As could be seen from the said order, pursuant to the

Resolution of the University Syndicate, the services of the

NC: 2023:KHC:33218 WP No. 36989 of 2010

petitioner was regularized as a Junior Assistant in the

National Adult Education Programme (NAEP) in the pay

scale of Rs.1040-1900 with usual allowances, till the end

of the NAEP Project.

7. As could be noticed from this, the earlier fixation of

pay scale at Rs.10/- less than the minimum of pay was

done away with and the petitioner was regularized as a

Junior Assistant in the same pay scale as had been given

to the other Junior Assistants. This order of regularization

further did state that he was entitled to hold the said

regular post only till the end of NAEP Project.

8. The petitioner also contends that in the year 1999,

his name was included in the seniority list of Junior

Assistants. But, in the subsequent lists of the year 2004

and 2007, his name was not included and the objection

that he had raised for omission of his name was not

entertained on the ground that the petitioner had been

appointed under the NAEP Project and that his

appointment was only till the end of the project.

NC: 2023:KHC:33218 WP No. 36989 of 2010

9. It is not in dispute that the NAEP Project was not

actually terminated, but, as a matter of fact, it was

renamed as the 'Adult Continuing Education Extension and

Filed Outreach Programme' and it is also admitted that the

said programme continues to be in existence till date.

10. In fact, in the endorsements issued while rejecting

the claim of the petitioner for omission of his name in the

seniority list, it is also admitted by the University that the

NAEP Project was still an ongoing project.

11. The fact that the petitioner was employed against a

project in the year 1984 and was regularized in the year

1994, and yet, the project continued even beyond 2007

when he retired, would fundamentally indicate that the

appointment of the petitioner was not only against the

Project, but it was regular employment. If a Project were

to run for more than twenty-five years, the University

cannot contend that the appointment was made against a

particular Project and that the same was only a temporary

or and ad hoc appointment.

NC: 2023:KHC:33218 WP No. 36989 of 2010

12. It is also to be noticed in the present case that the

petitioner was not only extended the equivalent pay scale

way back in the year 1993, but he was also regularized

and paid the same pay scales as had been ear-marked for

Junior Assistants. In the facts and circumstances of this

case, it becomes clear that the petitioner was all along

treated as a regular employee and was paid regular wages

assigned to a Junior Assistant for more than fourteen

years.

13. It is also to be noticed here that if an order of

regularization had been passed in the year 1994,

assuming it was only till the end of the project and the

project continued till the date of petitioner's retirement in

April-2008, it will have to be held that the petitioner was,

for all purposes, in law, a regular employee of the

University.

14. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

NC: 2023:KHC:33218 WP No. 36989 of 2010

Devendra Sharma1, would be of no avail since the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in that case was considering an

appointment that had been made on forged appointment

letters and fraudulent means.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that the right

to salary, pension and other service benefits would spring

from valid and legal appointment, and cannot be

attributed to an illegal appointment.

16. In the instant case, the University does not dispute

the fact that it legally appointed the petitioner and, in fact,

the University regularized the services of the petitioner by

considering appointment of the petitioner to be valid and

legal. Therefore, this judgment is of no avail.

17. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to all

the benefits that a regular employee of the University

would be eligible for, including that of pension and other

benefits including encashment of earned leave.

State of Bihar and others vs. Devendra Sharma, (2020) 15 SCC 466

NC: 2023:KHC:33218 WP No. 36989 of 2010

18. Consequently, the University is directed to pay the

pension and other benefits that a Junior Assistant would

be entitled to, including the encashment of earned leave of

240 days to the petitioner, within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

20. It has to be stated here that this judgment is being

rendered having regard to the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case and shall not be considered as a

precedent.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RK CT: SN