Karnataka High Court

Jagadeesh M vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 January, 2024

                                             -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:163
                                                       WP No. 21554 of 2019




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 21554 OF 2019 (S-RES)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    JAGADEESH M,
                         D/O LATE MARAPPA D,
                         AGED: 25 YEARS,
                         WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,

                   2.    ARUN RAKSHITH,
                         S/O ANANTHA SHAYANA VE,
                         AGED: 43 YEARS,
                         WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,

                   3.    RAVI KUMAR T,
                         S/O THIMMA HANUMIAH,
                         AGED: 33 YEARS,
                         WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
Digitally signed
by SUCHITRA M J    4.    VIJAYAKUMAR,
Location: High
Court of                 S/O NANJAIAH,
Karnataka
                         AGED: 30 YEARS,
                         WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,

                   5.    NAGARAJU N,
                         S/O NARASIMHIAH,
                         AGED: 40 YEARS,
                         WORKING AS ASST.INSTRUCTOR,

                   6.    SRINIVAS K,
                         S/O KRISHNAPPA,
                         AGED: 45 YEARS,
                          -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:163
                                    WP No. 21554 of 2019




7.   NASRENDRA BABU K.A,
     S/O LATE APPAIAH,
     AGED: 43 YEARS,
     WORKING AS ASST. INSTRUCTOR,

8.   ABHISHEK GOWDA S D,
     S/O DEVARAJA,
     AGED: 24 YEARS,
     WORKING AS ASST. INSTRUCTOR,

9.   SRINIVAS K R ,
     S/O RAMESH,
     AGED: 43 YEARS,
     WORKING AS ASST. INSTRUCTOR,

10. DHANANJAYA H U,
    S/O UDAYASHANKAR R H,
    AGED: 30 YEARS,
    WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,

11. ERANNA K,
    S/O KALLAYYA,
    AGED: 33 YEARS,
    WORKIGN AS ASST. LIBRARIAN,

12. GOVINDARAJU U K,
    S/O UMESHAPPA,
    AGED: 35 YEARS,
    WORKING AS ASST. LIBRARIAN,

13. NANJEGOWDA V ,
    S/O VISHAKANTEGOWDA,
    AGED: 38 YEARS,
    WORKING AS EXAM SUPERINTENDENT,
    RAJARAJESHWARI COLLEGE OF ENGINERING,
    #14, RAMOHALLI CROSS, MYSURU ROAD,
    KUMBOLGODU, BENGALURU - 560 074.
                            -3-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:163
                                    WP No. 21554 of 2019




14. M RAMESHA,
    S/O R. MAHALINGAIAH,
    AGED: 34 YEARS,
    WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,
    RAJARAJESHWARI COLLEGE OF NURSING,
    KAMBHIPURA, MYSURU ROAD,
    BENGALURU - 560 074.
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     REPRESENTED BY
     THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     DEPARTEMNT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
     M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
     PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.   VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
     REPRESENTED BY TS REGISTRAR,
     JNANA SANGAMA CAMPUS,
     BELAGAVI - 590 018.

4.   ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNCIAL
     EDUCATION (AICTE),
     REPRESENTED BY TS CHAIRMAN,
     NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ,
     NEW DELHI - 110 070.
5.   MOOGAMBIGAI CHARITABLE EDUCATION TRUST,
     REPRESENTED BY TS CHAIRMAN,
     KAMBIPURA, KENGERI HOBLI,
     MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 074.
                           -4-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:163
                                  WP No. 21554 of 2019




6.   THE PRINCIPAL,
     RAJARAJESWARI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
     #14, RAMOHALLI CROSS,
     MYSORE ROAD, KUMBALGOD,
     BENGALURU - 560 074.

7.   THE PRINCIPAL,
     RAJARAJESWARI COLLGE OF NURSING,
     KAMBHIPURA, MYSORE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 074.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
    SRI. B. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R7;
    SMT. T.S. ANUPAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7;
    R3 - SERVED, R4 SERVED)

      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-5
TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
DATED 22.11.2018, VIDE ANENXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION
AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT TO APPROPRIATELY FIX THE
BASIC PAY OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR
INITIAL APPOINTMENT AND DIRECT TO GRANT THE REGULAR
PAY SCALES, ANNUAL INCREMENTS AND ARREARS OF SALARY
AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO ENSURE AND
MONITOR THE FIXATION OF THE PAY SCALES TO THE
PETITIONERS AND ETC.,

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              -5-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:163
                                      WP No. 21554 of 2019




                          ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners

seeking mandamus against respondent No.5-Trust to

consider the representation submitted by the petitioners

on 22.11.2018, wherein a request was made by the

petitioners to fix the basic pay of the petitioners from the

date of their initial appointment and grant regular pay

scale, annual increments and arrears of salary as against

the consolidated salary paid by respondent No.5-Trust.

2. The petitioners are working under respondent

No.6-Management, which is managed by respondent No.5-

Trust. The petitioners claimed that they are working as

non-teaching staff in respondent No.6-Institution. It is the

specific case of the petitioners that they are appointed by

respondent Nos.5 and 6 by following the process of

selection by taking note of their qualification, experience,

age and other eligibility conditions. The petitioners claimed

that they were appointed by respondent No.6-Institution in

the year 2006-2007 and onwards and all the petitioners

NC: 2024:KHC:163

hold the requisite qualifications and eligibility prescribed

for the post for which they are holding. Petitioners,

through their union, have tendered detailed representation

requesting the respondent-management to pay salary on

par with their counterparts in the government engineering

colleges and institutions. The captioned petition is filed,

feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent

No.5-Trust in not considering the representation submitted

by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to

Rule 5 of the Karnataka Private Education Institutions (D &

C) Rules (for short, 'Rules'), would contend that the

petitioners who are employed in a private institution are

entitled to an equal pay scale in terms of Rule 5 of the

above said Rules. He would further point out that the

respondent-Institution is bound to adhere to the above

said Rule and fix the regular pay scale of the petitioners.

He would vehemently argue and contend that the inaction

on the part of respondents amounts to violation of Rule 5

NC: 2024:KHC:163

and therefore, he would request this Court to issue

appropriate directions to the respondent-Institution.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the

Co-ordinate Bench in the batch of petitions which are

produced at Annexures-M and N.

4. Heard learned counsel on record. I have given

my anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by

this Court in similar set of facts.

5. On reading Rule 5 of the Rules, the question

that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to

whether the petitioners, who are employed by respondent

No.5-Trust as non-teaching staff are entitled to equal pay

for equal work at par with other government employees.

This issue has been dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench and

given quietus by placing reliance on the dictum laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.S.Anand and

others v. The Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya

Peeth (Regd.) Bangalore and Another1. The Co-ordinate

(1998) 3 KAR.L.J. 293

NC: 2024:KHC:163

Bench, while examining the object of Rule 5, was of the

view that the petitioners who are employed by private

institutions cannot be denied the benefit of equal pay, i.e.,

conferred on the employees of government educational

institutions. The Co-ordinate Bench judgment cited by the

petitioner clearly reveals that the employees of the private

educational institutions cannot be denied the same pay

scale and such a denial would violate the prohibitions

contained in Rule 5 of the Rules. The Co-ordinate Bench in

identical cases directed the educational institutions where

the petitioners in the connected petitions were employed

to pay a pay scale at par with the employees employed in

the government educational institutions. The Co-ordinate

Bench went one step further and directed to pay arrears of

pay scale to the employees employed in private

educational institutions along with interest at the rate of

6% p.a.

6. If the rights of employees under private

institutions are protected by legislation, more particularly

NC: 2024:KHC:163

under Rule 5 of the Rules, it is not open for respondent

No.6-Management to deny the benefit of equal pay at par

or as provided with Rule 5 or Rule 3(b) of the 1978 and

2005 Rules, respectively. Respondent No.5-Trust is bound

to adhere to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of S.S.Anand and Others (supra). If

the petitioners, are employed in private unaided

educational institutions and are discharging the same duty

they are entitled for equal pay as conferred on the

employees employed in government institutions. Rule 5 of

the Rules equally contemplates that the pay scale of

employees of private institutions cannot be lower than the

pay scale of a corresponding post in government

educational institutions. By denying equal pay scales to

the employees who are employed in private educational

institutions, the respondent -management has violated

Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of Indian.

7. The petitioners are legally entitled for equal pay

and respondent No.5-Trust which is bound by Rule 5, is

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:163

equally under obligation to pay equal pay. Therefore, this

is a fit case where directions need to be issued to the

respondent No.5-Trust. For the reasons stated supra, I

pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed;

ii. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 22.11.2018 vide Annexure-J and are hereby directed to adhere to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules and pay the same pay scales to the petitioners as it is applicable to similar posts in government educational institutions;