Allowed

Dattatraya Yalagurdrao Kulkarni v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2022WP/100101/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a retired principal, sought the balance amount of the UGC payscale. The court quashed the respondent's rejection of his claim and directed them to reconsider his entitlement based on applicable Government Orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 20.09.2017 quashed; respondent directed to reconsider claim for UGC payscale balance within three months.

Dattatraya Yalagurdrao Kulkarni Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100101 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100101 OF 2018 (S-R) BETWEEN:

¶7

DATTATRAYA YALAGURDRAO KULKARNI AGE:68 YEARS, OCC:RTD.PRINCIPAL OF R L LAW COLLEGE, BELAGAVI, R/O. "TRUPTI", 74, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI & SRI. UDAYA D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI & SRI. UDAYA D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, #33, GROUND FLOOR, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, D.T.E. BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-01.

¶12

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, D C COMPOUND, DHARWAD.

¶13

¶14

WP No. 100101 of 2018

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL R L LAW COLLEGE, TILAKWADI-590006, BELAGAVI, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3 MISS. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.09.2017, VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS NULL AND VOID, AND ETC. THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner, who was working as a Principal of

¶21

R.L.Law College, Belagavi, retired on 31.01.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner filed W.P. No.113426/2015 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend UGC payscale from 01.01.1986 on par with the Lecturers of Arts, Science and Commerce College. This Court by order dated 16.09.2016 directed the respondent to grant the same to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1986.

¶22

Since the order passed by this Court was not implemented, the petitioner initiated contempt

¶23

¶24

WP No. 100101 of 2018

¶25

proceedings in C.C.C.100021/2017. In the said contempt proceedings, the respondent authorities paid the difference of UGC scale vide two cheques dated 24.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.12,72,954/- and another cheque for a sum of Rs.2,21,248/-. Since the petitioner stated that there was some error in calculation, the Division Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with the concerned authority seeking to set right the calculation error. In the light of the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted a representation with the respondent to pay the balance of UGC payscale. The third respondent by order dated 20.09.2017 rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner stating that the entire amount to which the petitioner is entitled has been paid, against which the present petition is filed.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent ought to have taken the Basic Pay of the petitioner at Rs.3,100/- as on 01.01.1986 and the Basic Pay at Rs.14,940/- as on 01.01.1996 as

¶27

¶28

WP No. 100101 of 2018

¶29

specified in the Government Order dated 30^th March 1990 and the Government Order dated 07.01.1992. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for balance of the amount of the UGC payscale.

¶30

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the amount has been paid to the petitioner by extending Scale of Pay recommended by the UGC. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for payment of any balance amount as claimed by him.

¶31

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶32

learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

The third respondent has taken the basic salary of Rs.3,100/- as on 01.01.1986 and Rs.12,840/- as on 01.01.1996. A perusal of the fixation of pay by the fourth respondent as per the Government Order dated 30^th March 1990 and 07.01.1992 indicates that the Basic Pay of the petitioner on 01.01.1986 was Rs.3,100/-, and as on

¶34

¶35

WP No. 100101 of 2018

¶36

01.01.1996, the Basic Pay was Rs.14,940/-. Hence, the

¶37

respondent No.3 is under an obligation to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the Government Order fixing basic pay of the Lecturer of Law Colleges in the State as on 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996. Therefore, I pass

¶38

the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶41

ii) The impugned order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the third respondent at Annexure-F is hereby quashed.

¶42

iii) Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for payment of balance amount in the UGC payscale in terms of the Government Orders applicable. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 105

Dattatraya Yalagurdrao Kulkarni v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Yalagurdrao Kulkarni 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc Vs Ramappa S/O Basavanneppa Karrora

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Basappa Billal Vs the State of Karnataka

Devendrappa S/O Hanumantappa Vaddarahatti Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management Vs Vittal S/O. Jyotiba Karande

Smt.Kamalavva W/O Shivamallappa Bhagoji Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivu Masti Mukri Vs the State of Karnataka