Allowed

Prof Dr G C Raju v. the Principal

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2021WA/4568/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenged the recovery of deputationist allowances from two professors who obtained Ph.D. degrees after the stipulated three-year period. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the recovery order, and directed issuance of a writ for the viewing of the representation to ensure equal treatment under Article 14.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the recovery order dated 23.09.2016 was quashed, and a writ of mandamus was issued to the Director to consider representations within six weeks.

Prof Dr G C Raju Vs the Principal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

W.A.NO.4568/2016 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PROF. DR. G.C. RAJU S/O G. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC: SERVICE AS PROFESSOR IN CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BMS EVENING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, BULL TEMPLE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 019.

¶11

RESIDING AT #35, 5TH CROSS ROYAL RESIDENCY LAYOUT OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD IIM POST, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶12

PROF. DR. HARICHARAN KAMATH S/O K.P. KAMATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: SERVICE AS PROFESSOR IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BMS EVENING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BULL TEMPLE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 019.

¶13

RESIDING AT NO.18, SAI SINDHI APARTMENT, S.F-5, 6TH CROSS THYAGARAJA NAGARA BENGALURU - 560 029. …APPELLANTS

¶14

¶15

(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA. P.M, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL BMS EVENING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 019.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA THE HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA, A.G.A. FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶22

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 52793-794/16 DATED 21.10.2016.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Sri.Narendra Babu, learned counsel

¶26

appearing on behalf of Sri.Siddamallapa P.M. for

¶27

appellants, Sri.Badri Vishal, learned counsel appearing

¶28

¶29

for respondent No.1 and Sri.Lakshminarayana, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶30

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 21.10.2016 whereunder petition came to be dismissed and prayer sought for by the petitioners that salary and allowances paid to them during the period of deputation had been rejected by the authorities on the ground of an agreement having been entered into by the parties and failing to fulfill one of the conditions in the agreement, the deputationist and the surety would be jointly and severally liable for repayment of expenditure incurred in full by the Government.

¶31

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 went on study leave on 29.07.2004 and 12.07.2001 respectively and they did not receive Ph.D degree till 26.09.2008 and 11.02.2005 respectively. On account of petitioners having not acquired Ph.D degree within a period of three (3) years, which was agreed to under the agreement entered between petitioners and Government, the amount paid to them as deputationist allowances was sought to be

¶32

¶33

recovered and said order of recovery had been upheld by learned Single Judge. Hence, this intra-court appeal.

¶34

Coordinate Bench in W.A.No.1754/2014

¶35

under similar circumstances has held:

¶36

"6. We are of the opinion that when the writ petitioner has pursued his Ph.D course in the said Institution for three years and obtained his Ph.D little later, there could be no reason for the authorities to ask him to refund the salary and other benefits paid to him during the period of deputation."

¶37

Appellants being similarly placed, we are of the considered view that relief sought for by them cannot be denied. Yet another factor which sways in favour of appellants can be retraced to the affidavit dated 15.06.2021 filed by the State whereunder it is clearly admitted in paragraph 4 of the affidavit sworn to by the Director (In-charge) Technical Education, Bangalore, to the effect that Sri.B.M.Nandeeshaiah and Sri.S.Gopiyanaik had also completed their Ph.D courses after stipulated period of three (3) years and recovery had

¶38

been initiated against them and on a request made by them to condone the delay in completing Ph.D degree

¶39

¶40

within a period of three (3) years, the Government acceded to their request and recovery initiated against them were withdrawn by order dated 31.07.2020 and 07.12.2017 respectively.

¶41

Petitioners being similar placed as that of Sri.Nandeeshaiah and Sri.Gopiyanaik, denial of relief by the appropriate Government would definitely be hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India. In other words, two (2) persons who are similarly placed cannot be discriminated and in the instant case petitioners also having undisputedly completed their Ph.D degrees or having acquired the same after the agreed period of three (3) years, recovery could not have been initiated against them or in other words, their prayer for payment of deputationist allowances could not have been refused or paid amount could not have been recovered. As such, we are of the considered view that appellants are entitled to the relief sought for.

¶42

For the reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following:

¶43

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶46

(ii) Order dated 21.10.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.52793-52764/2016 is set aside.

¶47

(iii) Recovery notice dated 23.09.2016

¶48

(Annexure-F) is quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued to first respondent to consider the representations of petitioners dated 26.09.2016 and 27.09.2016 (Annexures-G and H) expeditiously at any rate within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

Prof Dr G C Raju v. the Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof Dr G C Raju v. the Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gvk Emergency Management and Research Institute Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

G Srinivas Vs Shri Felix Antony Menezes

Smt Tamil Selvi @ Ammu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a v Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B D Mahadevi Vs Sri Rajappa

National Investigation Agency Vs Sri Vijay R