Partly allowed

Smt Vishalamma W/O Sri K N Bhaskar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2012WP/3401/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka partly allowed writ petitions filed by teachers of a private aided college. The court directed the Commissioner to re-consider the petitioners' eligibility for pay scale fixation and qualifying service benefits in light of a specific Division Bench judgment, while quashing the impugned rejection orders.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned orders; direction to Respondent No.2 to re-consider the matter within two months in light of reported Division Bench judgment.

Smt Vishalamma W/O Sri K N Bhaskar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.3401-3403/2009 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.3396-3400/2009 (S-RES)

¶7

IN WRIT PETITION Nos.3401-3403/2009 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

1 SMT VISHALAMMA, W/O SRI K N BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RETD. SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY, BHARATIYA SAMSKRITIYA VIDYA PEETHA ARTS AND COMMERCE COLELGE FOR WOEMN, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040. R/AT NO.27 SMITHA NIVAS, BINNY LAYOUT BEHIND ATTIGUPPE VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040.

¶10

2 SMT H K VIMALA, W/O SRI S N SRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, BHARTIYA SAMSKRITIYA VIDYA PEETHA, ARTS AND COMMERCE

¶11

¶12

COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040.

¶13

3 SMT M R RAJARAJESHWARI, W/O SRI RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RTD., SECOND DIVISION, ASSISTANT BHARTIYA SAMSKRITIYA VIDYA PEETHA, ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040. R/AT NO.208, 5THM AIN 10TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 070. ...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI K. HIRIYANNA, ADV.)

¶15

AND :

¶16

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (COLLEGIATE EDUCATION) M.S.BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶17

2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALOER 560 001.

¶18

3 THE BHARATIYA SAMSKRITIYA VIDYA PEETHA, NO.39, IST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALOER 560 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT MANJULA KOMMADALLI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;

¶20

¶21

SRI H.R.S RAO, ADV. FOR R3)

¶22

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DT. 7.3.2007, 10.12.2007 AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 22.3.2007, 23.8.2007, 11.12.2007 AND 7.11.2008 (ANNEX-F TO H ANND ANNEX-J TO L), ETC..

¶23

IN WRIT PETITION Nos.3396-400/2009 (S-RES)

¶24

BETWEEN :

¶25

1 SMT K N PUSHPALATHA, W/O PROF. P ACHUTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS PRINCPA, BHARATIYA SAMSKRITIYA VIDYA PEETHA, ARTS AND COMMERCE COLELGE FOR WOMEN. VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040.

¶26

2 SMT J USHA, W/O SRI R RAVISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS SELECTION SCALE LECTURER IN HISTROY, BHARATIYA SAMASKRITIYA VIDYA PEETHA ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040.

¶27

3 SMT K SHANTHA KUMARI, W/O SRI K NAGARAJASHETTY, WORKING AS SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN HINDI, BHARATIYA SAMASKRITIYA VIDYA PEETHA

¶28

¶29

ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040.

¶30

4 SMT G K NAGARATHNA, W/O SRI L HARISH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, LIBRARY CLERK CUM TYPIST ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040.

¶31

5 SMT P VIJAYA, W/O LATE C.V. BHANUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS LIBRARY ATTENDER, BHARATIYA SAMSKRITIYA VIDYA PEETHA ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040. ..PETITIONERS

¶32

(BY SRI K HIRIYANNA, ADV.)

¶33

AND :

¶34

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (COLLEGIATE EDUCATION) M.S.BUILDING,DR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001.

¶35

2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶36

3 THE BHARATIYA SAMSKRITIYA VIDYA PEETHA, NO.29, IST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE 560 8

¶37

¶38

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SMT MANJULA KOMMADALLI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI H.R.S RAO, ADV. FOR R3)

¶40

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DT. 7.3.2007, 10.12.2007 AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 22.3.2007, 23.8.2007, 11.12.2007 AND 7.11.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE J TO N AND ANNEXURE-P, ETC.

¶41

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

Petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for a direction

¶44

to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider their representations stated to have been given on 07.03.2007, 10.12.2007 and also the recommendation made by the third respondent dated 22.03.2007, 23.08.2007, 11.12.2007 and 07.11.2008 produced at Annexures-F to H and Annexures-J to L. Petitioners also got the petitions amended for quashing of endorsement produced at Annexure-N in W.P.Nos.3401-3403/2009 and Annexure-Q in W.P.Nos.33963400/2009.

¶45

¶46

The grievance of the petitioners is that, under Rule 247 of the K.C.S.Rs., the respondents are required to add four years of qualifying service of the petitioners and fix the pay scale. However, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, Rule 247 of the K.C.S.Rs. is not applicable to the petitioners, as the petitioners were appointed to the Aided School, they are not Government employees and they are governed by different Rules and not by K.C.S.Rs.

¶47

The Government has rejected the request of the petitioners by relying on Rule 224-B of K.C.S.Rs., as it is applicable only to the employees joined the Government service and it is not applicable to the employees appointed in a Private Educational Institutions. It is observed that, employees of the Private Aided Institutions are different from the Civil Servants and they constitute a different class by itself. As far as Grant-in-Aid is concerned, the Grant-in-Aid is a facility given to the employees of Private Aided Institutions as a matter of Policy and not as a matter of Rule.

¶48

¶49

However, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on

¶50

the judgment of the Division Bench reported in ILR 2011 KAR 5571 in the matter of The State of Karnataka, represented by its

¶51

Secretary, Department of Primary Education and others vs. N.G Shivalingappa and others, to submit that this Court considering the various judgments of the Apex Court has observed that, the functions and the duties discharged by the teachers in aided schools are similar to the functions and duties discharged by the teachers working in the Government schools, the qualification and responsibilities are identical, there cannot be any disparity.

¶52

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that, admittedly, the petitioners are the employees of Private Aided Schools, they are not Government servants and the KCSRs is not made applicable to the teachers working in Private Aided Institutions.

¶53

No doubt, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the

¶54

¶55

provisions of Section 87 of the Karnataka Education Act to show that, the qualification, conditions of service applicable to the Government teachers are also applicable to the services of the teachers appointed in Private Aided Schools.

¶56

Without going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate that the Government be directed to re-consider the matter in the light of the decision of the Division Bench and if these petitioners are found eligible for the benefit, the same may be extended. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶57

ORDER

¶58

These Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders at Annexure-N in W.P.Nos.3401-3403/2009 and Annexure-Q in W.P.Nos.3396-3400/2009, are hereby quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the matter by considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2011 KAR 5571 (supra) and dispose of the same in accordance with law,

¶59

¶60

as early as possible not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

KNM/DP

Smt Vishalamma W/O Sri K N Bhaskar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vishalamma W/O Sri K N Bhaskar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shankara Nayaka Vs the Director ( Hr)

Sri Siddaramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Vijaya Kumar Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt Leelamani Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash Acharya Vs Udupi Power Corporation Ltd.

Sri Radhakrishna C Shastry Vs the State of Karnataka