Smt. Vijaya W/O. Devaraddi Hosamani vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 4313 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Vijaya W/O. Devaraddi Hosamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647
                                                          WP No. 101308 of 2025




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                         DHARWAD BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                              BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 101308 OF 2025 (S-R)

                      BETWEEN:

                      SMT. VIJAYA W/O. DEVARADDI HOSAMANI,
                      AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED TEACHER,
                      R/O. C/O. D. V. HOSAMANI,
                      MIG-II, SIDDALING NAGAR,
                      TQ. AND DIST. GADAG -582101.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI K L PATIL, AND
                          SRI SAURABH SANDUR, ADVOCATES)

                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
                           REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA            RODDA ROAD,
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
                           TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD -580001.
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad

                      2.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
                           OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,
                           DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
                           HUBBALLI-BALLARI ROAD,
                           DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX,
                           ROOM NO. 111,
                           DIST. GADAG -582101.

                      3.   THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
                           GADAG CITY,
                           TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
                           -2-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647
                                 WP No. 101308 of 2025




4.   THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
     THE OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
     PARK HOUSE ROAD,
     POST BOX NO. 5329,
     BENGALURU -560001.

5.  HULKOTI CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY'S
    GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL GADAG BETAGERI,
    TQ. AND DIST. GADAG -582101,
    BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO 1.
DECLARE CLAUSE 1 OF ANNEXURE-II UNDER RULE 3 OF
KARNATAKA EDUCATION INSTITUTION (RECRUITMENT AND
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES IN
PRIVATE UNAIDED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS) RULE 1999, IN SO FAR AS IT EXCLUDES
COUNTING OF SERVICE RENDERED PRIOR TO COMING UNDER
GRANT IN AID FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENSION AND
PENESIONARY BENEFITS AS ARBITRARY, UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AS IT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 2. CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ENDORSEMENT
BEARING NO. A1/ Ni.Ve.Mam/ HOSAMANI/DaPa-2060/2022-
23/1895 DATED 14/10/2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. E3/
KhaPrauShaGa/ Ni.Ve.Mam/ HOSAMANI/ 2022-23/659 DATED
05/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-M1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3.
CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO GRANT PENSION
AND PENSIONARY BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER BY
RECKONING HER SERVICE FROM 04/01/2004 I.E., FROM THE
DATE OF INITIAL ENTRY INCLUDING HER SERVICE RENDERED
BY HER PRIOR TO COMING UNDER GRANT IN AID BENEFIT
ALONG WITH INTEREST     18% P.A. 4. ANY OTHER RELIEFS
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT FOR THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
                                      -3-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647
                                               WP No. 101308 of 2025




         THIS     PETITION,      COMING      ON    FOR     PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


                               ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for

the following reliefs:

i. Declare clause 1 of Annexure-II under Rule 3 of Karnataka Education Institution (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Unaided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rule 1999, in so far as it excludes counting of service rendered prior to coming under grant in aid for the purpose of pension and penesionary benefits as arbitrary, unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

ii. Consequently, issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing endorsement bearing No. A1/ Ni.Ve.Mam/ HOSAMANI/DaPa-2060/2022-23/1895 dated 14/10/2022 issued by respondent no.2 vide Annexure- M and endorsement bearing No. E3/ KhaPrauShaGa/ Ni.Ve.Mam/ HOSAMANI/ 2022-23/659 dated 05/11/2022 issued by the respondent no.3 vide Annexure-M1, in the interest of justice and equity. iii. Consequently, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to grant pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner by reckoning her service from 04/01/2004 i.e., from the date of initial entry including her service rendered by her prior to coming under grant in aid benefit along with interest 18% p.a. iv. Any other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit for the facts and circumstances of the case.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.K.L.Patil and

Sri.Saurabh Sandur appearing for the petitioner and the

learned HCGP Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil representing the

respondent-State.

3. The petitioner joins the services of the fifth

respondent - Institution on 17.05.2006. The Institution is

admitted to grant on 04.01.2004. The issue is whether the

period between 17.05.2006 to 04.01.2004 should be

reckoned for the purpose of calculation of the service

benefits to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the issue in the lis is pending consideration before the

Division Bench for it having been answered in favour of

the Teachers. In an order passed in the case of Shri

Manjunath K.R. S/o. Late Krishnaraje Urs Vs. The

State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.519/2021,

disposed of on 10th February 2021, noticing the fact that

the matter is pending consideration before the Division

Bench, this Court in identical circumstances has passed

the following order:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647

"2. The petitioner in the writ petition was appointed as Lecture in Geography of a private aided educational institution to teaching post. He contend that his claim is covered in terms of order dated 16.08.2010 passed in W.P. No.25447/2010, order dated 22.09.2011 passed in W.A.No.4788/2010, order dated 02.07.2012 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.7365/2012, the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Apex Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.2364/2012, Government Order dated 22.02.2013, the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.11299-11309/2013 and the order dated 16.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.29293-

94/2013.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State would accept that the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgments but submits that the matter is pending before the learned Division Bench.

4. This Court in W.P. Nos.9623-24/2015 disposed of on 13.01.2016, while noticing the fact of the pendency of writ appeal No.2476/2015, has held as follows:

"4. But in order to overcome the judgments of this Court, the State had enacted the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulations of pay, pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014, thereby denying the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647

pay scale of University Grants Commission for the period mentioned above. The said Act was challenged by filing large numbers of writ petitions. The writ petitions were decided by common judgment in the case of Dr. B.K. Naik (supra). By the said judgment, this Court had struck down the Act as unconstitutional. This Court had further directed the Government to pay salary to the petitioners therein, and to others similarly situated persons, as was being paid before the impugned enactment. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners before this Court is to extend the benefits of said judgment to them as well.

5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment dated 10-7- 2015 passed in the case of Dr.B.K.Naik (supra) has been challenged before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 27-

11-2015 passed by the learned Division Bench is as under:

"Insofar as the in-

service respondents are concerned, we record the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject, however, to the result of the writ appeals.

However, they are restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of pay".

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647

6. According to the said order, the learned Division Bench has recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re- fixation, subject to the result of the writ appeals.

7. Considering the fact that the learned Advocate General has made a statement before the learned Division Bench, and in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Dr.B.K. Naik (supra), this Court also directs the State to re-fix the pay scale payable to the petitioners. However, it should be made amply clear that the re-fixation of the pay scale would be subject to the decision of the writ appeal pending before this Court in Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015."

5. Since the petitioner is similarly situated and the issue raised is also similar, the writ petition stands disposed in terms of the aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law."

5. Further, in the case of Sri A. Srikantegowda

S/o. Appajigowda Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P.

No.3443/2021, disposed off on 18th February 2021,

wherein this Court had disposed off the petition by

observing as follows:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647

"2. The petitioner in the writ petition was appointed as a Lecturer on 17.06.1991, to a teaching post in Sri. Sardar Vallabhabai Patel PU College, a private aided educational institution. He contends that the claim is covered in terms of order dated 16.08.2010 passed in W.P. No.25447/2010, order dated 22.09.2011 passed in W.A.No.4788/2010, order dated 02.07.2012 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.7365/2012, the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Apex Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.2364/2012, Government Order dated 22.02.2013, the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.11299-11309/2013 and the order dated 16.07.2013 passedin W.P.Nos.29293-94/2013.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State would accept that the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgments but submits that the matter is pending before the learned Division Bench.

4. This Court in W.P. Nos.9623-24/2015 disposed of on 13.01.2016, while noticing the fact of the pendency of writ appeal No.2476/2015, has heldas follows:

"4. But in order to overcome the judgments of this Court, the State had enacted the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulations of pay, pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014, thereby denying the pay scale of University Grants Commission

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647

for the period mentioned above. The said Act was challenged by filing large numbers of writ petitions. The writ petitions were decided by common judgment in the case of Dr.B.K. Naik (supra). By the said judgment, this Court had struck down the Act as unconstitutional. This Court had further directed the Government to pay salary to the petitioners therein, and to others similarly situated persons, as was being paid before the impugned enactment.

Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners before this Court is to extend the benefitsof said judgment to them as well.

5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment dated 10-7- 2015 passed in the case of Dr.B.K.Naik (supra) has been challenged before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 27-11- 2015 passed by the learned Division Bench is as under:

"Insofar as the in-service respondents are concerned, we record the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject, however, to the result of the writ appeals. However, they are restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of pay".

6. According to the said order, the learned Division Bench has recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3647

their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject to the result of the writ appeals.

7. Considering the fact that the learned Advocate General has made a statement before the learned Division Bench, and in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Dr.B.K. Naik (supra), this Court also directs the State to re-fix the pay scale payable to the petitioners. However, it should be made amply clear that the re- fixation of the pay scale would be subject to the decision of the writ appeal pending before this Court in Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015."

5. Since the petitioner is similarly situated and the issue raised is also similar, the writ petition stands disposed in terms of the aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law."

6. Since the petitioner is similarly situated and the

issue is also similar, the writ petition would stand disposed

in terms of afore-quoted orders with a direction to the

State to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance

with law.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE