Dismissed

Ashok B. Patil v. the Director

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2013WA/30339/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by a teacher challenging the Single Judge's order that denied his claim for grant of aid to his post, ruling that such grant is a matter of policy, not right, while noting his right to claim unpaid salary.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; delay condonation application rejected; appellant retained right to claim unpaid salary.

Ashok B. Patil Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. MANOHAR

¶8

W.A. No. 30339/2013 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI ASHOK B. PATIL, S/O BHAVAKU HEMANA PATIL, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC.: ENGLISH & MARATHI TEACHER, L.B.S.V.M. BELGAUM DISTRICT, R/O MANGOTI, HUKKERI, TQ. & DIST.: BELGAUM.

¶11

APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE DIRECTOR, ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DHARWAD.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BELGAUM, DIST. BELGAUM.

¶16

THE SECRETARY, DAKSHINA MAHARASHTRA SHIKSHANA MANDAL, BELGAUM.

¶17

RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI C.S. PATIL, A.GA..)

¶19

¶20

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P. NO. 4708/2008 DATED 04.01.2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/22.04.2003 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN APPEAL NO. 01/05-06/406 VIDE ANNEXURE-L & ETC.

¶21

THIS W.A. COMING FOR ADMISSION ON THIS DAY, DILIP B. BHOSALE J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

PC :

¶23

This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.01.2013 passed in W.P. No. 4708/2008 whereby the appellant’s petition has been dismissed. In the writ petition he prayed for direction to admit grant in aid to the post which she has been holding since 1990. The respondent-institution were admitted to grant in aid on 31.03.1998 and the post on which petitioner was working was admitted to grant with effect from 23.02.2002.

¶24

According to the authority, the post on which petitioner was appointed was not entitled to be admitted to grant in aid from 31.03.1998. Keeping this in view and overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

¶25

¶26

Single Judge has rightly observed that grant in aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right, this being a matter of policy decision.

¶27

In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Dismissal of the appeal, however, shall not preclude the appellant from claiming unpaid salary, if any, from the respondentinstitution.

¶28

Since we have dismissed the appeal on merits, the application filed for condoning delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is rejected.

¶29

SD/JUDGE

¶30

SD/JUDGE

¶31

bvv

Ashok B. Patil v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok B. Patil v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanna Bellad S/O. Gurappa Bellad Vs All India Veerashiva Maha Sabha (R)

Gudappa S/O. Durgappa Makarolli Vs the Land Tribunal

Ramesh Shrinivas Heda Vs Suryakant K. Shanbhag

Sukumar Kalagouda @ Gundappa Patil Vs Bramharaj S/O. Dhanapal Gotadki

B Jayadev S/O. Basappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Vasudev Rao Vs G Lata Krishna Rao