Karnataka High Court
The Principal Secretary vs Sri. Syed Mansoor Khader on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
WA No. 91 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 956 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
CCC NO. 956 OF 2023 (CIVIL)
IN WA No. 91/2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION),
DEPT. OF EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND
Digitally signed DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVT. (SERVICES)
by DEPT. OF EDUCATION,
PRABHAKAR (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION)
SWETHA M.S. BUILDING,
KRISHNAN BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: High
Court of 3.
Karnataka THE COMMISSIONER
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION)
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
WA No. 91 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 956 of 2023
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE NORTH ZONE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI SYED MANSOOR KHADER
S/O. SYED DASTAGIR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
WORKING AS FDA CUM ACCOUNTANT,
S.K.A.H COMPOSITE
PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
(HIGH SCHOOL SECTION)
BASHA NAGAR,
DAVANAGERE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/06/2023 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WRIT PETITION NO.25364/2019 & ETC.
IN CCC NO. 956/2023 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SYED MANSOOR KHADER
S/O. SYED DASTAGIR
AGED 62 YEARS
WORKING AS A.F.D.A CUM
ACCOUNTANT S.K.A.H COMPOSITE
PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
WA No. 91 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 956 of 2023
(HIGH SCHOOL DAVANAGERE)
BASHA NAGAR DAVANAGERE
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. B. B. KAVERI
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
K.R. CIRCLE
(NEAR RBI OFFICE)
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...ACCUSED
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... PRO FORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RUBEN JACOB., AAG A/W
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA )
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO PUNISH THE
ACCUSED FOR COMMITTING THE CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR
DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 12.06.2023 PASSED IN W.P. No.25364/2019 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL & CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
WA No. 91 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 956 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned Additional Advocate General
Mr. Ruben Jacob assisted by learned Additional Government
Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the appellant-State and its
authorities and learned advocate Mr. R. Basavaraj Bannur for
respondent-original petitioner.
2. The challenge in this appeal preferred under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 at the instance of State is
addressed to the judgment and order dated 12.06.2023, whereby
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The order dated
29.05.2019 passed in Review Petition No.147 of 2014 came to be
set aside, whereas the order dated 22.04.2015 in Appeal No.147 of
2014 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government
(Services, Primary and Secondary Education Department),
Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru, came to be confirmed.
3. The issue involved in the controversy is about allowing the
benefit of salary grant to the petitioner during the period from
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
09.06.1999 to 22.11.2004. The order of the competent authority
dated 22.04.2015 was upheld by learned Single Judge by directing
to consider the appointment of the petitioner with salary grant from
09.06.1999 and to accord such benefit for the period from
09.06.1999 to 22.11.2004. The claim of the petitioner that he was
entitled to such benefit from 09.06.1999 in respect of his services
and not from 22.11.2004 was accepted.
3.1 Noticing the basic facts, the original petitioner-respondent
herein was appointed as First Division Assistant on 27.05.1989 in
Millath Educational and Welfare Society, Davanagere. The
appointment of the petitioner came to be approved by the
Government as per the order dated 28.12.1989, but it was without
salary grant. It appears that the State Government subsequently
passed the order dated 09.06.1999, whereby 1116 number of non-
teaching staff were admitted for salary grant. The petitioner was not
given the benefit from the said date namely, 09.06.1999, but his
case was considered for such grant with effect from 22.11.2004.
3.2 The original petitioner-respondent herein had an occasion to
file Writ Petition No.3521 of 2006 along with others seeking
declaration that the respondents were liable to extend the benefit of
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
salary grant to the petitioners including the present petitioner with
effect from 09.06.1999 and the action in not extending such benefit
from the said date was arbitrary and illegal. The said petition was
disposed of by the order dated 09.07.2008. The petitioners, who
included the present one, were permitted to submit detailed
representation to the competent authority seeking entitlement for
salary grant benefit for the said period from 09.06.1999 to
22.11.2004.
3.3 Noticeably, while remitting the case as above to the
competent authority, this Court made the following observations
extracting paragraph 4 from the said order dated 09.07.2008,
"After careful perusal of the materials available on
record, what it emerges is that, in fact, the
Government has approved the grant in respect of
1116 non-teaching staff appointed between 1.1.1990
to 1.6.1992 and the appointment of these petitioners
were also fall within the said period. Therefore, the
authority ought to have called for the report from the
schools/colleges where these petitioners are
working. But, inadvertently or by oversight, their
names have not been included for extending the
benefit of the government order dated 9.6.1999 for
no fault of them and when the approval has been
accorded by the Government, it ought to have called
for details from the persons who have not been
extended the benefit and contrary, as per the
representation dated 16.8.2005, first respondent has
issued the impugned communication dated
10.10.2005 stating that these petitioners are entitled
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
for grant from 22.11.2004 and not from 9.6.1999
without any justification or without assigning any
reasons."
3.4 The Court proceeded to observe that the denial of the benefit
was without any reference to the particulars and it was not known
as to why the petitioners were considered to be not entitled for
extension of the benefit. Consequently, with such reasoning, the
impugned communication reflecting the decision of denial of the
benefit dated 10.10.2005 was set aside and the case was
remanded. Since the claim of the petitioner again met with the
same fate, cause of action arose to file another petition which
culminated into the order as above which is now under
consideration in this appeal.
3.5 It is to be noted, as is reflected in the order which was
perhaps the order passed by the Additional Secretary to the
Government in the first point of time on 04.11.2004 which
considered the question of extension of benefit from 09.06.1999,
that the case was considered for those employees who were
appointed during the period from 01.01.1990 to 01.06.1992, but
were ineligible to receive the grant and for few of the non-teaching
staff employees who were left out of the order dated 09.06.1999. In
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
other words, the petitioner fell in the category of employees left out
from being extended the benefit as per the order dated 09.06.1999
to be considered for the salary grant from the said date.
3.6 The facts stared at the face that as many as 1116 non-
teaching staff appointed between 01.01.1990 to 01.06.1992 were
accorded the benefit of salary grant from 09.06.1999. Admittedly,
the date of appointment of the petitioner including the other two
petitioners who filed the previous Writ Petition No.3521 of 2006 fell
within the said period between 01.01.1990 to 01.06.1992.
3.7 No reason forthcame as to why the petitioner was left out
from extending the benefit. The conspicuous aspect is that the
other two petitioners along with whom the petitioner had filed the
said earlier petition came to be granted the benefit to the exclusion
of the petitioner, for which also no tenable ground is forthcoming.
4. Learned Single Judge, while allowing the instant writ petition,
recorded the following findings in paragraph 5 of the order,
"on careful examination of the G.O. dated 09.06.1999,
the Government has taken a decision to dispense with
the economic measures and as such, approved nearly
1116 employees in the State and same is subject to the
terms and conditions referred to in G.O. dated
09.06.1999. The only compliance to be made by the
applicants is, seeking benefit of the G.O. dated
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
09.06.1999, that their names should be in staffing
pattern prior to 01.03.1992. It is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner was working as FDA,
Accountant at Millath Educational and Welfare Society,
Davanagere, to S.K.A.H. Composite Pre-University
College, since 27.05.1989 and therefore, the Appellate
Authority has rightly passed order, stating that the
petitioner is entitled for benefit from 09.06.1999 and not
from 22.11.2004. This aspect of the matter was also
considered by this Court in W.P.No.3521/2006
disposed of on 09.07.2008, wherein the petitioner has
been arrayed as petitioner No.3 in the said writ
petition."
4.1 Learned Single Judge noticed to observe that the State
Government has extended the benefit from 09.06.1999 to other two
petitioners in the said Writ Petition No.3521 of 2006 and that the
case of the petitioner was not considered. Learned Single Judge,
therefore, viewed that the reasons assigned by the Rivisional
Authority in negativing the claim of the petitioner were not
sustainable whereas, the Appellate Authority was justified in
coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had worked in the
college prior to 09.06.1999 and there was no good reason to deny
the salary grant benefit to the petitioner from the said date. Learned
Single Judge, therefore, directed that the case of the petitioner has
to be considered in light of the Government Order dated
09.06.1999.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
5. This Court is in agreement with the reasonings supplied by
learned Single Judge to affirm and uphold the order dated
22.04.2015 passed by the competent authority in the appeal.
5.1 Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants
sought to rely on Rule 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Educational
Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of
Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational
Institutions) Rules, 1999 and the proviso thereto, to submit that the
petitioner cannot be extended the benefit as above.
5.2 Learned advocate for the respondent-original petitioner
would submit that the said Rule would not apply inasmuch as the
claim of the petitioner is only from 09.06.1999 and not from the
date of the original appointment. The Court finds substance in
what is submitted by learned advocate for the respondent.
5.3 In course of hearing today, on behalf of the appellants, a
memo was filed along with which, the order of the Additional
Commissioner, School Education Department, Kalburagi dated
17.08.2024 was produced on the basis of which, learned Additional
Advocate General submitted that in respect of two other employees
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
who are the co-petitioners along with the petitioner in the previous
Writ Petition No.3521 of 2006, the benefit has been withdrawn.
5.4 When the Court put a query as to under which provision and
under which circumstance, the aforesaid order came to be passed,
learned Additional Advocate General was entirely at his receiving
end. Not only that, it was admitted that the order of withdrawal was
passed by the very authority which had passed the earlier order.
5.5 In this regard, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent-
petitioner that the authority had become functus officio and the
order of withdrawal could not have been passed by it. This
submission could not be brushed aside lightly. Be that as it may.
Even otherwise, when the Court looks at the order, it provides that
recovery shall not be effected from the said petitioners.
6. The Court does not find any good reason to advert to, for any
purpose whatsoever, the said order dated 17.08.2024 produced
today inasmuch as, in the facts of the case, this Court is entirely in
agreement with the reasonings supplied by learned Single Judge in
allowing the petition of the petitioner to the extend the benefit of
salary grant from 09.06.1999 to 22.11.2004.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35947-DB
7. The judgment and order of learned Single Judge does not
book any error and does not call for any interference in the
appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed.
8. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General fairly
stated that time may be granted to comply with the order passed by
learned Single Judge.
9. Six weeks' time is granted to comply with the order within
which the benefit shall be accorded to the petitioners.
10. In view of the order passed in the writ appeal and extension
of time given to comply with the order of learned Single Judge as
per the request of learned Additional Advocate General, the
contempt proceedings will not survive. They are accordingly
disposed of.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
application would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
