The Court held the writ petition filed by an employee seeking arrears of salary, DA, and gratuity against a private engineering college was not maintainable. The Court directed the petitioner to seek relief through Section 131 of the Education Act.
none granted; directive to approach Government
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.64710/2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
ANANDKUMAR R. ANNIGERI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGARAJ APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE.)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE, DIFFERENCE OF ARREARS OF SALARY, GRATUITY, ONE MONTH E.L. FOR EVERY YEAR TO THE PETITIONER AS PER AICTE SCALE AND HALF THE D.A. ADMISSIBLE FOR CHENNAI CITY EVERYDAY FOR THREE YEARS DURING THE COURSE OF PURSUING THE PH.D., WITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the dearness allowance, difference of arrears of salary, gratuity, one month E.L. for every year to the petitioner as per AICTE scale and half the D.A. admissible for Chennai City everyday for three years during the course of pursuing the Ph.D., with interest at 18% per annum.
3
The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Industrial Production Engineering in BVB College of Engineering and Technology on 25.9.1992 and was working there from 25.9.1992 to 31.7.2003. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Lecturer on 1.8.2003, though the petitioner was eligible for promotion as Senior Lecturer on 25.9.1997 itself, so also he was eligible for promotion as a Lecturer (Selection Grade) on 25.9.2002. The petitioner was also eligible for promotion as Professor under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) from August 2007, but the petitioner was not given promotion as Professor. Hence, the petitioner was entitled for the pay scale of Professor from August 2007 treating the notional promotion.
It is also stated that the petitioner was prevented from enjoying vacation for more than 15 days every year since 2000 till relieving him from service on 31.7.2003. The petitioner was eligible
4
for one month E.L. every year since 2000. The petitioner has served the institution for 17 long years, the gratuity for the said period is also not been paid.
The petitioner further stated that he was deputed for higher studies like Ph.D., to IIT Chennai, under Quality Improvement Programme from July 2003 to October 2006, though he was eligible for half the DA admissible for Chennai City every day for three years. He therefore stated that nothing has been paid and tuition fees for three years to pursue the Ph.D., course also not paid by the respondents. Hence, petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the same. Though the petitioner has made several requests to pay the said dues, the respondents have not taken any action to disburse the same. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5
petitioner and the respondents.
respondents submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as against the respondents they
6
being private institution and hence the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. He submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy to redress his grievance regarding non payment of dues. He further contended that section 131 and 133 of the Education Act provide remedies to the persons like the petitioner for approaching the Government with their grievances pertaining to non payment of salaries by the private educational institutions. He also relied upon the decision reported in 1998 (6) KLJ 306 (H.B.Kotresh v. State of Karnataka and others) . Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
7
8
non payment of amounts
by the private
educational institutions.
Provided that the State Government shall not pass any order adversely affecting any party unless such party has had an opportunity of making a representation.
(2) The State Government may stay the execution of any such decision
9
or order pending the exercise of powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof.
(3) Every application preferred under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time and in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.
disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Government for redressal of his grievance.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mrk/-
1 issue framed by the court
whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private institution regarding non-payment of dues
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H.B.Kotresh v. State of Karnataka and othersReferred¶33
**1998 (6) KLJ 306 (H.B.Kotresh v. State of Karnataka and others)**
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anandkumar R. Annigeri
The Principal B.V.B. College of Engineering & Technology, Hubballi
K.L.E. Society, Belagavi
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
