Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Karnataka State Government And Aided ... on 26 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.19855 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
TO BE REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (PRE UNIVERSITY)
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNEMNT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,BENGALURU -560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES,
VISHVESHWARAIAH SMALL TOWERS,
BENGALURU -560001.
4. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDN,
MALLESHWARAM 18TH CROSS,
BENGALURU 560001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT AND
AIDED PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGES-2008 AFTER
DIRECT RECRUITED LECTURERS ASSOCIATION
WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
'VIDHATRI NILAYA', NISARGA LAYOUT, URGADURU
-2-
POST, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201,
TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
DR. K V UMASHANKAR,
50 YEARS, S/O SRI K VEERANNA
(ALSO A LECTURER IN P U COLLEGE,
BHADRAVATHI-577301.
2. DR.K.V UMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O SRI K VEERANNA, LECTURER,
SILVER JUBLIEE GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE,
BHADRAVATHI - 577301,
RESIDING AT 'VIDHATRI NILAYA',
NISARGA LAYOUT,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577203.
3. SRI RAJU H J,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O SRI JAYANNA H, LECTURER,
RAJANAHALLI SEETHAMMA,
GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE FOR GIRLS,
P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577006,
R/AT DOOR NO.1515, 1ST MAIN, 14TH CROSS,
VINOBHANAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577006.
4. DR. ANANTRAM NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI SUBBANNA NAYAK,
LECTURER, GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE, HIRIYADKA,
UDUPI-576113, R/AT VIRASAI, KATTE ANMGADI,
PALLI POST: 574 244, KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
5. SRI CHANDRANATHA M,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O SRI JAYARAJA JAI,
LECTURER, GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE,
CHELAIRU, MANGALURU-570 575,
R/AT CHANDRIKA, BANGRAKULUR,
KOTTARACHOWKI, MANGALURU.
6. SRI HEMANTHARAJU S N,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O SRI NAGARAJAPPA N, LECTURER,
GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE FOR BOYS,
CHITRADURGA-577 501,
R/AT NO.82, SRI GURU THIPPERUDRA SWAMY KRUPA,
NEHRU NAGAR 3RD CROSS, HULALKERE ROAD,
-3-
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
7. SMT.GEETHA H,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O SRI SATISH KUMAR G,
LECTURER, GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE,
T.KODIHALLI POST, ARIKERE TALUK,
BALENA HALLI, R/AT PANDURANGARAO COMPOUND,
OLA SANTE MAIDANA, BHUTANA GUDI,
BHADRAVATI-577 301.
8. DR.SANDESH A.L,
S/O SRI LAKSHMI RAMANA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
LECTURER IN GOVT. P.U.COLLEGE,
SHIVANI, AJJAMPURA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
R/AT ANUVANA HALLI,
SHIVANI POST: 577 549,
AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P A KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ON
THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE AND THE GROUNDS TO BE
URGED DURING THE HEARING OF THE INSTANT WRIT
PETITION, THE PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2021
(ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU IN A.No-
664-671/2021.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 23RD JULY, 2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-4-
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Petitioners No.1 being the State and 2 to 4, being
its authorities are assailing the order dated 29.10.2021
passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for
short).
2. The parties to the petition shall be referred to as
per their designation before the Tribunal. Present
Respondents were the applicants and the petitioners were
the Respondents before the Tribunal.
3. In terms of the impugned order, the Tribunal has
held that the respondents in the present petition who were
the applicants before the Tribunal are entitled to special
allowance from the date of their appointment until the
merger of special allowance in terms of the order dated
19.04.2018.
4. Certain facts necessary for adjudication of the
petition can be noted as under:
• The first applicant is a registered Association of
directly recruited lecturers in Government Aided
Pre-University Colleges. Applicants No.2 to 8 are
the Lecturers in Government Aided Pre-University
Colleges recruited after 01.08.2008.
• On 12.05.2006, the Government granted special
allowance of Rs.200/- as interim relief with effect
from 01.04.2006 to the Government and Aided
High School Teachers and Pre-University College
Lecturers till the revision of pay scale based on the
final recommendation of 5th State Pay
Commission. On 28.08.2008, the revised pay
scale was sanctioned to the Primary School
Teachers w.e.f. 01.08.2008.
• On 29.08.2008, the Government discontinued the
special allowance of Rs.200/- to Primary School
Teachers appointed on or after 01.08.2008 as the
revision of the pay scale to the Primary School
Teachers was given effect. The Government Order
dated 29.08.2008 also clarified that the Primary
School Teachers recruited prior to 01.08.2008 will
be entitled to receive a special monthly allowance
of Rs.200/-.
• On 09.05.2012, the Government enhanced the
monthly allowance from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- for
Primary School Teachers and Rs.400/- in respect
of High School Teachers and Rs.500/- in respect of
Pre-University College Lecturers. It was further
clarified that the enhanced special allowance is
payable only to such persons who are already
receiving such special allowance.
• Despite the Government Order dated 29.08.2008,
which did not specifically discontinued the special
allowance payable to the Pre-University College
Lecturers, same was denied to some of the
Lecturers. Thus, Applications No.7100-03/2010
were filed by some of the Lecturers in Pre-
University College. Those applications were
allowed and the Government was directed to
consider the claim of the applicants in those
applications.
• On 28.07.2014, the Government issued
corrigendum to the Government Order dated
29.08.2008, and clause No.3 was substituted to
the Government Order dated 29.08.2008 to
provide special allowance to Secondary School
Teachers and Pre-University Lecturers who were
appointed prior to 01.08.2008 and Clause No.4
was inserted denying special allowance to the
Secondary School Teachers and Pre-University
Lecturers appointed on or after 01.08.2008.
• Writ Petition Nos.49356/2013 and 51109-11/2013
were filed by the State challenging the order in
Applications No.7100-03/2010. The said writ
petitions were dismissed on 14.12.2015. On
27.01.2017, Special Leave Petitions filed by the
State in SLP Nos.16469-16472/2016 challenging
the order in Writ Petitions No.49356/2013 and
connected matters were also dismissed. It is
relevant to refer to the relevant paragraphs in
Writ Petitions No.49356/2013 passed by the co-
ordinate bench of this Court on 14.12.2015:
"6. xxxx. From the Government Order
dated 29.08.2008, it is amply clear
that the Government has not accepted
the recommendations of the 5th State
Pay Commission with regard to
payment of special allowance of
Rs.200/- to the Primary School
Teachers only. In respect of other
categories of the teaching staff i.e.,
high school teachers as well as
P.U.College Lecturers, the Government
Order dated 12.05.2006 granting
special allowance @ Rs.200/- p.m. will
continue. Since the Government Order
dated 29.08.2008 is simple and clear,
we do not find any ambiguity in the
said order.
7. In this view of the matter, other
teaching staff including the
respondents who are lecturers of P.U.
Colleges are entitled to the benefit of
special allowance. Hence, no
interference is called for Petitions to
fail. Accordingly, Writ Petitions are
dismissed".
(Emphasis added)
• Thereafter on 19.04.2018, the Government revised
the pay scale based on 6th State Pay Commission,
and the special allowance provided earlier merged
with the basic pay.
5. The State also initiated action to recover the
special allowance paid to the lecturers who were appointed
on or after 01.08.2008 on the premise that they are not
entitled to the said special allowances and same had been
paid inadvertently. Under these circumstances, the
applicants before the Tribunal sought a declaration that
applicants No. 2 to 8 and members of applicant No.1 -
- 10 -
Association are entitled to special allowance based on the
Government Order dated 12.05.2006 and they also prayed
for quashing the Government order dated 01.12.2020
which directed recovery of the allowance paid.
6. Before the Tribunal, the State objected to the claim
of the applicants. The State tried to justify the impugned
orders on the premise that certain lecturers who were
appointed on or after 01.08.2008, though not entitled to
special allowance in view of the corrigendum by the State
on 29.08.2008, have been inadvertently paid special
allowance.
7. The Tribunal overruled the objection filed by the
State and allowed the applications. The Tribunal noticed
that some of the similarly placed lecturers who had
approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.4412-28/2020,
and 3936-74/2017 were granted the benefits based on the
findings in Application Nos.7100-7103/2010. The Tribunal
has also noticed that, while allowing Application Nos.4412-
28/2020 vide order dated 05.05.2021, the Tribunal has
noticed that the order passed in Writ Petition
- 11 -
No.49356/2013 has attained finality and the Special Leave
Petitions challenging the said order is also rejected. The
Tribunal also noticed that clauses No.1 and 3 of the
impugned order dated 23.07.2018 in Applications
No.4412-4428/2020 have been held to be ultra vires
insofar as the applicants in Applications No.4412-
4428/2020.
8. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the
State has filed the present writ petition.
9. Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State would contend that
applicant No.1 - Association cannot espouse the cause of
its members. He would also submit that though the
Association is a registered Association, same is not
recognised under the Karnataka Civil Services (Recognition
of Service Association (Rules), 2015 (Rules, 2015' for
short). It is also his further contention that applicant No.1
Association even if recognised, cannot be an aggrieved
person and, as such, could not have maintained the
application. It is also his further contention that the
- 12 -
corrigendum dated 28.07.2014 has categorically made it
very clear that the lecturers appointed on or after
01.08.2008 are not entitled to the special allowance.
Thus, he would pray for setting aside the order of the
Tribunal.
10. Learned Advocate appearing for the
respondents pointed out that the applicant No.1-
Association before the Tribunal is duly registered under
law and application for recognition under Rules, 2015 is
still pending before the Government and the same is not
yet rejected. It is also his contention that the
maintainability of the application by applicant No.1-
Association was never raised before the Tribunal. He
would submit that the co-ordinate bench of this Court in
Writ petition No.49356/20213 and connected matters has
held that all lecturers on par with the respondents in the
said writ petitions are entitled to special allowance. Thus,
he would urge to dismiss the writ petition.
11. This Court has considered the contentions
raised at the bar.
- 13 -
12. The disposal of the applications and the writ
petitions referred to above is not in dispute. The
contesting respondents No.2 to 8 are admittedly, the
lecturers in Pre University College appointed after
01.08.2008. The private parties to the proceedings
referred to above are also the lecturers in Pre-University
College appointed after 01.08.2008. In terms of the orders
passed in the aforementioned applications/petitions, the
lecturers appointed after 01.08.2008 have been given the
benefit of special allowance for a certain period.
13. The question is, "Whether the 1st applicant/1st
respondent-Association maintains an application espousing
the cause of its members who are the lecturers in Pre-
University College?"
14. Normally, the petition/application by an
Association of people espousing the cause of its members
is not maintainable, unless the Association itself is
aggrieved. Here the grievance raised is that of the
individual grievance of the members of the Association.
Thus, for redressal of such grievance, the aggrieved
- 14 -
party/member has to approach the appropriate forum. In
the instant case, technically respondent No.1 - Association
cannot be considered as an aggrieved person. However, it
is relevant to note that even before the 1st respondent -
Association along with some of its members who are the
lecturers in Pre-University College approached the Tribunal
for appropriate relief, the co-ordinate bench of this Court
in Writ Petition No.49356/2013 and connected matters had
declared the rights of the lecturers who are similarly
placed with the respondents in the said petition. Thus, the
rights of the members of the 1st respondent - Association,
namely the rights of the Pre-University Lectures are
already adjudicated and crystalised in so far as their
entitlement to special allowance in terms of order dared
12.05.2006. The State had challenged the said order in
Writ Petition No.49356/2013 and connected matters
before the Apex Court in SLP No.16469-16472/2016. The
said challenge failed as the SLP was dismissed on
27.01.2017.
- 15 -
15. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the
conclusion made in paragraph No.7 to the effect, "In this
view of the matter, other teaching staff including the
respondents who are lecturers of PU college are entitled to
the benefit of special allowance" has remained intact and
attained finality. The aforementioned finding makes it very
clear that there is a positive direction to the State to
confer the special allowance to all other teaching staff who
are lecturers in the Pre-University College.
16. Since the rights of other lecturers in Pre-
University College who were not parties to the Writ
Petition No.49356/2013 and connected matters were also
declared in the aforementioned writ petition, this Court is
of the view that the application filed by the Association is
maintainable though technically the Association is not an
aggrieved person in the strict sense.
17. It is also relevant to note that the Association is
duly registered. Though it is contended by the State that
the Association has not yet received recognition under the
Rules, 2015, on going through the said Rules, it is noticed
- 16 -
that the recognised Association under the Rules, 2015 can
submit representation or send a delegation to the
Government in connection with service condition and
common interest of the members. There are a few more
conditions specified in the Rules, 2015 which are not
relevant to the present discussion. It is relevant to note
that the 1st respondent-Association which is duly
registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act,
1960 on 11.11.2020 submitted a representation dated
30.11.2020 to the competent authority seeking
recognition. The representation is not yet considered. In
other words, it is neither allowed nor rejected. This being
the position, the respondent/State cannot urge the
contention that the 1st respondent, without recognition,
cannot maintain an application.
18. Since the 1st respondent - Association is duly
registered under the relevant Act and also given the fact
that its members' right to claim special allowance is
already adjudicated by the competent Court and order in
the earlier writ petition is a declaration as to the
- 17 -
entitlement of similarly placed employees and same
having attained finality, this Court, in the peculiar
circumstances of this case, is of the view that the
contention relating to maintainability of the application by
the 1st respondent - Association is too technical and cannot
be raised at this stage. Such technical contention cannot
be accepted given the fact that the rights of the members
of the 1st respondent - Association are already declared in
the previous proceeding. The State being a welfare State,
is bound by the Constitutional mandate of Article 14.
Ideally speaking, the State should have extended the
benefit to all eligible Pre-University Lectures, upon
dismissal of Special Leave Petition No. 16469-16472/2016.
On the other hand, the State proceeded to initiate action
to recover the alleged dues from some of the Lectures on
the premise that inadvertently, the special allowance was
paid to ineligible persons. In such a scenario, the
application filed by applicant No.1 cannot be dismissed as
not maintainable. The contention that applicant No.1
cannot maintain an application was not raised before the
Tribunal. Though it is a question of law which can be
- 18 -
agitated even in higher forums for the first time, what is to
be noticed is, had such a contention been raised before
the Tribunal, probably the aggrieved Lecturers would have
joined other applicants raising individual grievances. In
that event, the result would have been the same. In the
backdrop of above said peculiar circumstances of this
case, the contention of the State is rejected.
19. This Court does not find any error in the order
of the Tribunal extending parity to similarly placed
persons, which is in tune with the mandate of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
20. Hence the following.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29.10.2021 in
Application No.664-671/2021 on the file of
the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bengaluru is confirmed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS/BRN
