[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
D V Gopalappa vs V R Shylaja on 11 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.332 OF 2025 (S-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1063 OF 2024
WRIT APPEAL NO.334 OF 2025 (S-RES)
IN WA NO.332/2025:
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK
CROWFORD HALL
MYSURU-570 005.
(REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADV.)
AND:
1 . D.V. GOPALAPPA
SON OF VENKATANARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETIRED PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS
R/AT NO.269, LAKSHMINRUKESARI
4TH MAIN, BANK COLONY
BOGADI MAIN ROAD CIRCLE,
MYSURU-570 026.
2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
2
MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHUAR PRABHU, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. S.A.AHMED, AAG WITH
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND
ORDER DATED 18.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. NO.9038/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION.
IN CCC NO.1063/2024:
BETWEEN:
D. V. GOPALAPPA
SON OF VENKATANARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCCUPATION: RETIRED PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS
R/AT NO.269 LAKSHMINRUKESARI
4TH MAIN, BANK COLONY
BOGADI RING ROAD CIRCLE
MYSURU-570 026
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV.,)
AND:
1. V. R. SHYLAJA
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
UNIVESITY ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK
CROWFORD HALL
3
MYSURU-570005
2. SRIKAR M S (IAS)
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
KARNATAKA
SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
2ND GATE, 6TH FLOOR
M.S. BUILDNG
BENGALURU-560 001.
...ACCUSED
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
2ND GATE, 6TH FLOOR
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADV. FOR A1;
SRI. S.A.AHMED, AAG WITH
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR A2 AND PROFORMA R3)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 R/W. SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INSTITUTE AN
ENQUIRY AND INITIATE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST
THE ACCUSED FOR THEIR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS
DATED 18.06.2024 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN
W.P.NO.9038/2024, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
4
IN WA NO.334/2025:
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
MULTI STORIED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.A.AHMED, AAG WITH
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA)
AND:
1 . SRI. D V GOPALAPPA
S/O. VENKATANARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RETIRED PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS,
R/AT. NO.269, LAKSHMINRUKESARI,
4TH MAIN, BANK COLONY,
BOGADI RING ROAD CIRCLE,
MYSORE-570 026.
2 . UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE,
UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK,
CROWFORD HALL,
MYSORE-570 005,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
18.06.2024 IN W.P.NO.9038/2024.
5
THESE WRIT APPEALS AND CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Writ Appeals No.332/2025 and 334/2025 are filed by
the University of Mysore and the State, respectively, as
against the Order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9038/2024 (S-RES). The
Contempt of Court case is filed alleging willful disobedience
of the same order.
2. We have heard Shri. Udaya Holla, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Shri. Abhishek. K, learned Advocate
appearing for the University of Mysore, Shri. S.A. Ahmed,
learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Shweta
Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State and Shri. Shridhar Prabhu, learned
counsel appearing for the private respondent.
3. Respondent No.1 herein had filed the writ petition
challenging the endorsement dated 22.01.2024 issued by
the University of Mysore, which was produced as Annexure -
A. By the said endorsement, the University of Mysore had
held that respondent No.1's appointment as 'Reader in
Economics' on 12.07.2007, by direct recruitment was a fresh
appointment and that his earlier service rendered as Reader
on contract basis from 30.07.2004, could not be counted as
qualifying service. The learned Single Judge considered the
contentions advanced and found that respondent No.1 was
initially appointed on a contractual basis on 30.07.2004 up
to 31.03.2007, which was to be co-terminus with the UGC X
Plan. Thereafter, he was appointed as Reader in the year
2007 by Direct Recruitment. The learned Single Judge found
that the services of all other persons who had been
appointed on temporary basis in terms of UGC X Plan had
been continued, their appointments regularised and they
were held eligible for inclusion in the Old Pension Scheme,
taking note of their initial appointment in the year 2004. In
respondent No.1's case, he had also continued in service,
after 31.03.2007 as well, but had participated in a selection
for Direct Recruitment to the post of Reader and had
succeeded. The Syndicate had constituted a sub-committee
and the report of the sub-committee was placed before it.
The Syndicate considering the findings of the sub-committee
and after detailed deliberations held that respondent No.1
was eligible to be included in the Old Pension Scheme.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
University of Mysore would also contend that respondent
No.1 was a person who had been appointed specifically on a
contract basis for the duration of the UGC X Plan. It is
specifically stated in the appointment order that the post is
sanctioned only for the UGC X Plan period terminating on
31.03.2007. It is stated that while he was working on
contractual basis, Annexure - D Notification dated
19.04.2007 was issued for regular appointment and
respondent No.1 applied pursuant to the Notification and
was appointed on a regular basis by Annexure - E Order
dated 12.07.2007. It is submitted that the said Order
clearly shows that it is a fresh appointment and prescribes a
probation for a period of two years. It is further submitted
that he was admitted to the Contributory Pension Scheme
and he had also contributed from his salary to the said
Scheme. It is therefore contended that the Order impugned
in the writ petition passed by the University of Mysore, was
perfectly legal and valid and that since he was appointed
directly after introduction of the New Pension Scheme, he
could not claim any entitlement for benefits under the Old
Pension Scheme.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State submits that the powers of the
Syndicate are clearly defined under Section 29 of the
Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 ('KSU Act' for short).
It is contended that the power of the Syndicate is to frame
statutes and the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme had
been extended to other seven employees appointed
temporarily under the UGC X Plan Scheme and later
regularised in service of the University, only after framing of
the statutes as provided in the KSU Act. It is contended
that in respondent No.1's case, there was no statute framed
and as such, the Syndicate did not have the power to pass
an order to the effect that respondent No.1, who is not a
beneficiary of the statute, should be granted the benefit of
inclusion in the Old Pension Scheme.
6. We have considered the contentions advanced. It
is an admitted fact that the petitioner/respondent No.1 was
appointed on a contractual basis pursuant to Annexure - B
Notification dated 20.02.2001. It was after a due
recruitment process that appointment Order dated
30.07.2004 was issued to him. It is true that the post was
sanctioned only for the UGC X Plan period. However, it is an
admitted fact that the persons appointed pursuant to
Annexure - B Notification, continued in service on the basis
of extension of UGC X Plan. While so, Annexure - D
Notification was issued on 19.04.2007 inviting applications
from persons having due qualifications and five years
experience in teaching or research for regular appointment.
The writ petitioner applied and was appointed by Annexure -
E Order dated 12.07.2007. True, the said appointment was
not a regularisation of service. However, it is clear that, but
for the said regular appointment, the writ petitioner would
have continued on a contractual basis and his service
regularized as has been done in all other cases of similarly
situated persons. All persons who had been appointed for
the UGC X Plan were later regularised in service and were
also granted the benefit of inclusion in the Old Pension
Scheme on the basis of competent orders of the Syndicate.
These proceedings have become final and there is no
challenge or recall of the said benefits granted. The only
difference in the writ petitioner's case was that, he had
undergone a further selection process and had been
appointed regularly as Reader in the University of Mysore by
Annexure - E Order dated 12.07.2007. There is also no
dispute that the writ petitioner was also fully qualified for
appointment and that there was no break in his service.
Further, the University had acted upon the decision of the
Syndicate and had refunded the entire amount collected as
contribution from the petitioner's salary towards the New
Contributory Pension Scheme with interest.
7. Having considered the contentions advanced and
the facts on record as well as the findings rendered by the
learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the
question whether the Syndicate had the power to direct the
benefits to be granted to the writ petitioner, dehors the
framing of statutes is not a question which requires to be
considered in these writ appeals. The said question is
expressly left open.
8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, where the petitioner was also appointed along with
seven persons who had been granted the benefit of Old
Pension Scheme by the Syndicate and on the basis of the
factual findings of the Syndicate as contained in the Order
dated 12.07.2007, we are of the opinion that the writ
petitioner would also be entitled to the benefit of inclusion in
the Old Pension Scheme. We are not persuaded to differ
from the findings of the learned Single Judge.
9. In the result:-
(i) Both the appeals fail and the same are
accordingly dismissed.
(ii) The appellants are granted two months
time to comply with the directions issued
by the learned Single Judge.
(iii) The amounts already deposited by the
University of Mysore before this Court shall
be reckoned towards the amounts due to
respondent No.1 herein and in case any
amounts are found to be in excess, the
same shall be released to the University.
(iv) The Contempt of Court Case is closed with
liberty to the complainant to file afresh, if
the amounts are not disbursed as directed
above.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of in all the matters.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
