Disposed

Sri. D. S. Venkateshmurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2020WP/29306/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench disposed of the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought relief regarding pension claims in a private aided school. The court disposed of the petition on the basis of a pending judgment of a co-ordinate bench, directing the petitioner to be considered in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on terms of a co-ordinate bench order; petitioner directed to have case considered in accordance with law.

Sri. D. S. Venkateshmurthy Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.29306/2018 (S - R)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI D.S.VENKATESHMURTHY S/O D.N.SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT MASTER GRAMA SEVA RURAL HIGH SCHOOL, BAGINAGERE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶9

R/AT AGRAHARA ROAD, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANGARA DISTRICT.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI R.PADMANABHA, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶18

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 120.

¶19

ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA, (ENTITLEMENT AND ACCOUNTS), PARK HOUSE, BENGALURU-560 001, BENGALURU CITY – 560 001.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., HCGP. (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 13.07.2017 VIDE ANNX-D AND ANOTHER COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 17.07.2017 VIDE ANNX-E, BOTH THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE R-6 ETC.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents herein to reckon the service rendered by him prior to the admission of the Institution, where he is working, to grant in aid.

¶27

The petitioner in the writ petition was appointed as a High School Assistant Teacher of Sri Adichunchanagiri Mahasamsthana Mutt, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, a private aided educational institution, to both teaching and non-teaching posts. He contends that the claim is covered in terms of order dated 16.08.2010 passed in W.P. No.25447/2010, order dated 22.09.2011 passed in W.A.No.4788/2010, order dated 02.07.2012 passed in

¶28

Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.7365/2012, the

¶29

¶30

order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Apex Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.2364/2012, Government Order dated 22.02.2013, the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.11299-11309/2013 and the order dated 16.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.29293-94/2013.

¶31

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State would accept that the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgments but submits that the matter is pending before the learned Division Bench.

¶32

This Court in W.P. Nos.9623-24/2015

¶33

disposed of on 13.01.2016, while noticing the fact of

¶34

the pendency of writ appeal No.2476/2015, has held as follows:

¶35

“4. But in order to overcome the judgments of this Court, the State had enacted the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulations of pay,

¶36

¶37

pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014, thereby denying the pay scale of University Grants Commission for the period mentioned above. The said Act was challenged by filing large numbers of writ petitions. The writ petitions were decided by common judgment in the case of Dr. B.K. Naik (supra). By the said judgment, this Court had struck down the Act as unconstitutional. This Court had further directed the Government to pay salary to the petitioners therein, and to others similarly situated persons, as was being paid before the impugned enactment. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners before this Court is to extend the benefits of said judgment to them as well.

¶38

5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment dated 10-72015 passed in the case of Dr.B.K.Naik (supra) has been challenged before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 27-11-

¶39

¶40

2015 passed by the learned Division Bench is as under:

¶41

“Insofar as the in-service respondents are concerned, we record the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject, however, to the result of the writ appeals. However, they are restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of pay”.

¶42

6. According to the said order, the learned Division Bench has recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject to the result of the writ appeals.

¶43

7. Considering the fact that the learned Advocate General has made a statement before the learned Division Bench, and in

¶44

¶45

the light of the judgment passed in the case of Dr.B.K. Naik (supra), this Court also directs the State to re-fix the pay scale payable to the petitioners. However, it should be made amply clear that the refixation of the pay scale would be subject to the decision of the writ appeal pending before this Court in Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015.”

¶46

Since the petitioner is similarly situated and

¶47

the issue raised are also similar, the writ petition stands disposed in terms of the aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

nvj CT:MJ

Sri. D. S. Venkateshmurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D. S. Venkateshmurthy 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/S. Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs Shri D.Krishnappa

The Commissioner Vs Mrs.Asumptha Maia D Souza

The Commissioner the Corporation of City of Vs Smt.K.v.Kalyani

S Somalingaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rekha Vs the Director