Allowed

Sri. Annegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2020WP/25145/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitions teachers sought directions to release outstanding increments and terminal benefits via a Deputy Director order that remained unimplemented by the Pay Drawing Officer. The High Court allowed the petitions, directing issuance of increments and pension within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release annual increments, stagnation increments, and pension within three months as per Annexure-P order dated 18.01.2018.

Sri. Annegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.25145/2018 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI ANNEGOWDA

¶9

S/O K.H. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS EARLIER WORKING AS HEAD MASTER (IN-CHARGE) SRI YADUSAHAILA HIGH SCHOOL MELUKOTE

¶10

PANDAVAPAUARA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-5771431 NOW RETIRED FROM SERVICE RESIDING AT MELUKOTE PANDVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571431.

¶11

SRI M.MAHESH S/O M. MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER/ INCHARGE HEAD MASTER SRI YADUSAHAILA HIGH SCHOOL MELUKOTE PANDAVAPAUARA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-5771431.

¶12

SRI S.G. VASANTH KUMAR S/O GOVINDAIH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER

¶13

¶14

SRI YADUSAHAILA HIGH SCHOOL MELUKOTE PANDAVAPAUARA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-5771431.

¶15

SRI PURUSHOTHAMA S/O MAHADEVAPPA.K AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SANGAMESHWARASWAMY HIGH SCHOOL SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE K.R.PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT EARLIER WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI YADUSAHAILA HIGH SCHOOL MELUKOTE PANDAVAPAUARA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-5771431.

¶16

SRI M.S.GURUDEV S/O SANNABORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER SRI YADUSAHAILA HIGH SCHOOL MELUKOTE PANDAVAPAUARA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-5771431.

¶17

SRI MAHADEVA NAYAK S/O SANNAHYDA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS CRAFTS TEACHER SRI YADUSAHAILA HIGH SCHOOL MELUKOTE PANDAVAPAUARA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-5771431.

¶18

SRI G.M. SRINIVASA S/O G.M. MAYANNA GOWDA

¶19

¶20

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT SRI YADUSAHAILA HIGH SCHOOL MELUKOTE PANDAVAPAUARA TALUK

¶21

MANDYA DISTRICT-5771431. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

¶24

THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRAPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE.

¶25

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571430.

¶26

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER PANDAVAPURA TALUK PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT-571431.

¶27

THE SPECIAL OFFICER (PAY DRAWING OFFICER FOR YADUSHAILA HIGH SCHOOL, MELUKOTE) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶28

¶29

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION MANDYA DISTRICT

¶30

MANDYA-571430. ... RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 17.09.2018)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3 TO R5 SPECIAL OFFICER TO GRANT INCREMENTS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2018 UNDER ANNEXURE-P PASSED BY THE R2, WHICH ARE DUE TO THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR LIGIBILITY, CONSEQUENTLY GRANT MONITORY BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioners in this writ petition have sought

¶36

for a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.3 – The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, respondent No.4 –The Block Education Officer and respondent No.5 – The Special Officer to release increments and other

¶37

¶38

terminal benefits in terms of order dated 18.01.2018

¶39

passed by the second respondent.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Ganapathi

¶41

appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP Sri. Venkat Satyanarayan A., appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the material on record.

¶42

The petitioners are all appointed as

¶43

teaching and non-teaching staff in the Yadushaila High

¶44

School, Melukote on the following dates:

¶45

Sl. No.	NAME	POST	DATE OF APPOINTMENT
1.	Sri. Annegowda	In-charge Head Master (Rtd)	06.06.1995
2.	Sri M. Mahesh	Assistant Teacher	07.06.1995
3.	Sri S.G. Vasanth Kumar	Assistant Teacher	08.06.1995
4.	Sri Purushothama	Assistant Teacher	11.03.2011
5.	Sri Gurudev M.S.	Physical Education Teacher	11.03.2011
6.	Sri Mahadeva Nayak	Crafts Teacher	13.06.1995
7.	SriG.M.Srinivasa	SDA	10.03.2014

¶46

¶47

It is contended by the learned counsel for

¶48

the petitioners that the increments and other benefits due to the petitioners on account of 25 years of service and 30 years of service were not paid at the time, when they were serving in the school.

¶49

On repeatedly withholding the monthly salary of the petitioners along with other employees without there being any reason for such action, all the petitioners complained to the State Government that an Aided Educational Institution was not paying salary despite the same being received from the Government. Owing to repeated complaints of the petitioners, the State Government appointed a Special Officer on 17.12.2012 to be the Pay Drawing Officer. It is after that appointment, the petitioners started to get regular monthly salary.

¶50

¶51

6. The appointment of Pay Drawing Officer

¶52

was questioned by the management before the Government in Appeal No.54/2012, the Commissioner disposed the appeal on 02.07.2013 directing that the management shall pay salary to the petitioners. This was further challenged by the management before this Court in W.P.Nos.45410-11/2013, which came to be disposed on 11.11.2013 by the following order:

¶53

“2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order at Annexure-U whereby, by way of A stop gap arrangement, the State Government had appointed A Salary Disbursement Officer. Several complaints had been initiated against the in-charge Head Master who was said to be instrumental in delaying the disbursement of the salary and pension benefits of the Teachers. However, an appeal having been filed, the authority had taken note fo the changes brought about in the management, but however, held that the order passed at Annexure-U was in order, having regard to the circumstances that pertained. It is this which is under challenge in this present petition.

¶54

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would not seriously dispute that

¶55

¶56

even as on date, there is only a Head Master who is temporarily in charge, and that the approval of the appointment of Head Master is yet to be processed by the State Government and a formal order is yet to be passed. In that view of the matter, the appointment of the Salary Disbursement Officer as a stop gap arrangement continues.

¶57

4. It is, however, in order that State Government expedite the approval and consideration of the appointment of a Head Master. In any event, within a period of four weeks from receipt of a copy of this order, in order to maintain normalcy in the administration of the petitioner-institution. In this regard, the management shall cooperate with the State Government in furnishing the documents that may be required to expedite the matter. The management shall not blame the State Government on account of any delay in this regard.

¶58

5. There is no good warranting interference by this court. The petitioners are disposed of accordingly.”

¶59

When the salary of the petitioners was

¶60

again withheld, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.33570-33571/2013 c/w W.P.Nos.31034-

¶61

¶62

31037/2013. It is during the pendency of the writ petition, the third respondent complied with the earlier order and appointed a Pay Drawing Officer on 24.02.2014. Noticing this fact, the writ petition came to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶63

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners herein claiming the following reliefs:

¶64

8.1) The first petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2017, his terminal benefits are not yet settled.

¶65

8.2) Petitioner No.4 was identified as an excess teacher and the department had transferred him to a different Institution, he is yet to be relieved.

¶66

8.3) Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are due to be paid one annual increment from 01.10.2015 and another increment from 01.10.2016 on completion of 20 years of service.

¶67

8.4) Petitioner No.4 is due to be paid two increments for two annual increments form

¶68

¶69

01.01.2015 and additional increment on completion of 20 years of service from 01.10.2015

¶70

8.5) Petitioner No.5 is due to be paid one increment from 01.05.2016 and another special increment from 01.06.2016.

¶71

8.6) Petitioner No.6 is due to be paid one annual increment from 01.05.2016.

¶72

8.7) Petitioner No.7 is due to be paid one annual increment from 01.03.2016.

¶73

The petitioners have submitted representation

¶74

to the second respondent for a direction for release of the aforesaid increments. The second respondent by an order dated 18.01.2018 directed to release all

¶75

annual increments, stagnation increments and also a further direction to settle all the terminal benefits of the persons retired amongst the petitioners. The allegation is despite the clear direction from the

¶76

¶77

second respondent the fifth respondent – Pay Drawing

¶78

Officer has not released the aforesaid amounts.

¶79

When there is a clear direction from the

¶80

second respondent to the Pay Drawing Officer that all the annual increments and terminal benefits shall be released. The Pay Drawing Officer is yet to release the same. Therefore, a mandamus will issue to the first and the second respondents to ensure that the petitioners get all their dues in terms of the communication dated 18.01.2018 – Annexure –P.

¶81

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶82

ORDER

¶83

The writ petitions are allowed .

¶84

The first and second respondents shall ensure that the annual increments, stagnation increments and pension as in communication dated 18.01.2018 –

¶85

¶86

Annexure - P be released in favour of the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

SJK

Sri. Annegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Annegowda v. 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

Sri B K Hampagol Vs the Commissioner

M/S H M Towers Private Limited Vs the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt Manjula Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Central Board of Trustees, Epf Vs M/S. Venkateswara Packagings

Smt Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Zameela Begum Vs the Commissioner