Disposed

Shri T M Vijayakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2023WP/100438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the unconstitutionality of pension provisions in a state Act, holding the petitioner is similarly situated to those in coordinate benchmarks. The petition was disposed of directing the State to consider the case in accordance with existing orders pending before the Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; directed to consider petition in accordance with law pending Division Bench decision on the Act's constitutionality.

Shri T M Vijayakumar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 100438 OF 2023 (S-R)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. T M VIJAYAKUMAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. RTD. PRINCIPAL, T.M.A.E.S. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, HOSPET, AT. T M A E S POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. UMESH C AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF LAW & PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2023.08.08 11:05:32 +0530

¶15

DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL T M A E S POLYTECHNIC (AIDED), HOSPET-583201.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R2; R3 SERVED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3(1) AND (2) OF THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EMPLOYEES REGULATION OF PAY, PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS) ACT 2014 (KARNATAKA ACT 7 OF 2014) DATED 12/02/2014 NO. ¸ÀA. ªÀå±ÁE.

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶21

60 ±Á¸À£À 2013 BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSEQUENTLY STRUCK DOWN THE SAID PROVISIONS AS ULTRA VIRUS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

“i) Declare the provisions of Section 3(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees Regulation of pay, Pension and other Benefits) Act 2014 (Karnataka Act 7 of 2014) dated 12/02/2014 No. ¸ÀA. ªÀå±ÁE. 60 ±Á¸À£À 2013 Bengaluru vide Annexure-G passed by the 1st respondent as unconstitutional and consequently struck down the said provisions as ultra virus of the Constitution of India.

¶26

ii) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow the petition with exemplary cost, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

parties.

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶30

The petitioner joins the services of the fifth respondent – Institution on 16.07.1984. The Institution is admitted to grant on 5.2.2001. The issue is whether the period between 16.07.1984 to 5.2.2001 should be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of the service benefits to the petitioner.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis is pending consideration before the Division Bench for it having been answered in favour of the Teachers. In an order passed in the case of Shri Manjunath K.R. S/o. Late Krishnaraje Urs Vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.519/2021, disposed of on 10^th February 2021, noticing the fact that the matter is pending consideration before the Division Bench, this Court in identical circumstances has passed the following order:

¶32

“2. The petitioner in the writ petition was appointed as Lecture in Geography of a private aided educational institution to teaching post. He contend that his claim is covered in terms of order dated

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶34

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 Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.7365/2012, the 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.2929394/2013.

¶35

3. 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.

¶36

4. This Court in W.P. Nos.9623-24/2015 disposed of on 13.01.2016, while noticing the fact of the pendency of writ appeal No.2476/2015, has held as follows:

¶37

“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, 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

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

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 2711-2015 passed by the learned Division Bench is as under:

¶42

“Insofar as the inservice 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”.

¶43

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

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶45

their current emoluments in terms of the re- fixation, subject to the result of the writ appeals.

¶46

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

¶47

5. Since the petitioner is similarly situated and the issue raised is 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

Further, in the case of Sri A. Srikantegowda

¶49

S/o. Appajigowda Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P.

¶50

No.3443/2021, disposed off on 18^th February 2021, wherein this Court had disposed off the petition by observing as follows:

¶51

“2. The petitioner in the writ petition was appointed as a Lecturer on 17.06.1991, to a

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶54

teaching post in Sri. Sardar Vallabhabai Patel PU College, a private aided educational institution. 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 Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.7365/2012, the 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.1129911309/2013 and the order dated 16.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.29293-94/2013.

¶55

¶56

4. This Court in W.P. Nos.9623-24/2015 disposed of on 13.01.2016, while noticing the fact of the pendency of writ appeal No.2476/2015, has held as follows:

¶57

“4. But in order to overcome the judgments of this Court, the State had

¶58

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶59

enacted the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulations of pay, 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.

¶60

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 2711- 2015 passed by the learned Division Bench is as under:

¶61

“Insofar as the in-service respondents are concerned, we record the statement of

¶62

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶64

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”.

¶65

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.

¶66

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

¶67

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023

¶68

¶69

6. Since the petitioner is similarly situated and the

¶70

issue is also similar, the writ petition would stand disposed off in terms of aforequoted orders with the direction to the State to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance

¶71

with law.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

Vb/Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 108

Shri T M Vijayakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri T M Vijayakumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnaram Manaram Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Adumkarim Rijvi Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sohail S/O Mohammed Yusoof Vs State of Karnataka

Iranna S/O. Late Rangappa Jangawad, Vs the Managing Director

Shankaravv@ Uma W/O. Late Siddanagouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Popat Vithoba Mane Vs the Dy. Commissioner