Allowed

Sri. Mallikarjuna. N. M. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2020WP/12056/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a lecturer in a private pre-university college, filed a writ petition seeking direction to the State Government to consider his representations for pay parity with government institution employees under Rule 3(b) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions Rules, 2005. The court allowed the petition, directing the Government to consider the representations within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Direction issued to Respondents 1 to 3 to consider petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within six months.

Sri. Mallikarjuna. N. M. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.12056/2018 (S - RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI. MALLIKARJUNA N.M., S/O. LATE MANJAPPA R.N., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH, SREE RENUKA INTEGRATED COMPOSITE JUNIOR COLLEGE, RAMANAGARA HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT,

¶8

PRESENTLY R/AT: DWC 2/B, HUTTA COLONY, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PADMANABHA R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

¶13

¶14

HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, 18^TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 012.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, BELLARY DISTRICT BELLARY – 577 501.

¶17

THE SECRETARY YEDEYURU SREE SIDDALINGESHWARA VIDYA PEETHA (R), KANAMADUGU, KUDILIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 135.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 – R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI J.M.UMESH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4(ABSENT))

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.7.2017, 7.7.2017 AND 13.11.2017 MADE BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEX-F, G AND H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE RULE 3(b) OF THE KARNATAKA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES IN PRIVATE UNAIDED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AND PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS) RULES 2005 DATED 12.1.2006 AND

¶21

¶22

CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 12.10.2007 AND ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 30.06.2009 VIDE ANNEX-C, D AND E RESPECTIVELY. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners in this writ petition has sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his representations as

¶25

per Annexures ‘F’ and ‘G’ dated 7.7.2017 and Annexure ‘H’ dated 13.11.2017.

¶26

The petitioner, in this writ petition, claims to have been appointed as lecturer in English by the 4^th respondent-Management on 1.8.2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appointment of the petitioner is approved by the Government in terms of the order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure-C).

¶27

¶28

After the approval of their appointment, petitioner gave aforementioned representations to respondent Nos.1 to 3-State Government that he is entitled to pay on par with the corresponding category of posts in the Government educational institutions in terms of Rule 3(b) of The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Certain Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Unaided Primary and Secondary and Pre-University Educational Institutions) Rules, 2005, (for short ‘the said Rules, 2005’) and have sought for a direction to the 6^th respondent to pay the same in terms of the aforesaid Rules. The State Government is yet to consider the representations of the petitioner.

¶29

Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules, 2005, reads as follows:

¶30

“3. Minimum number of posts, Educational Qualifications and Conditions of service of employees :- (1) Subject to the other provisions of these rules :

¶31

¶32

(a) The minimum number of categories and number of posts and staffing pattern shall be as applicable to aided educational institutions. The educational qualifications for recruitment to the various posts in the educational institutions shall be the same as those applicable to the corresponding category of posts in Government educational institutions;

¶33

(b) Salary:- The salary of the employees in the educational institutions, namely, the unaided Primary, Secondary and Pre-University educational institutions shall not be less than the minimum of the basic of the scale of pay of the corresponding post held by an employee in a Government educational institution and shall be disbursed through Account payee cheques drawn in favour of such employee.”

¶34

In terms of the aforesaid extracted Rules, the State Government is required to consider the entitlement of the petitioner in terms of the representations given by the petitioner seeking parity in pay with the corresponding category of posts in the Government educational institutions.

¶35

¶36

Since the representations are yet to considered

¶37

by the respondent-State Government, I am of the considered view that a direction is to be issued to the respondent-State to consider the representations of the petitioner.

¶38

In the result, I pass the following order:

¶39

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) A direction is issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3-

¶41

State Government to consider the representations of the petitioner as per Annexures ‘F’ and ‘G’ dated 7.7.2017 and Annexure ‘H’ dated 13.11.2017 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six

¶42

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Cs CT:MJ

Sri. Mallikarjuna. N. M. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mallikarjuna. N. M. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Yashoda Vs State of Karnataka

Shivanna Vs the Bbmp

Shri G.N. Nataraj Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt Puttamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Venkataramanappa Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)

Sri. Halabasappa. G. M. Vs State of Karnataka