Partly allowed

Smt S Ambikamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023WP/26554/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired teacher, challenged orders denying grant of two advance increments. Court found lower authorities failed to consider relevant Government Orders and precedent equating pay for aided and government teachers.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned orders; restored proceedings to the second respondent to reconsider grant of two advance increments within three months.

Smt S Ambikamma Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 26554 OF 2014 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT S AMBIKAMMA W/O. R.N.SHANTHAKUMAR SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT TEACHER, TAGORE HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL TIPTUR AND ALSO AT NO.721/4, 8^TH MAIN K.R.EXTENSION, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. BALARAJ A C.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER

¶15

FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-1.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, (PRIMARY EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶19

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-1.

¶20

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, TUMKUR SOUTH, TUMKUR – 572 101.

¶21

THE SECRETARY, TAGORE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, (R), TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.M.S. NAGARAJA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7.4.14, PASSED BY THE R1, VIDE ANN-L;DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SANCTION & PAY 2 ADVANCE INCREMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FOR ACQUIRING HIGHER QUALIFICATIONS AS PER THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 24.5.1977 VIDE ANN-C & AS EXTENDED TO SIMILARLY PLACED AIDED SCHOOL TEACHER.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner, who admittedly was selected as a ‘Primary School Teacher’ with aided institution in July 1977 and whose appointment is approved for grant-in-aid in the month of May 1979, has called in question the Order dated 07.04.2014 in Appeal No.13/2010 by the first respondent [ Annexure-L ], and the petitioner prays for directions to the respondents to consider the grant of ‘Two Advance Increments’ in terms of the Government Order dated 24.05.1977 [Annexure-C] and pay dues accordingly.

¶30

This is the petitioner’s second round of litigation which is commenced with the petitioner calling in question the second respondent’s Order dated 09.07.2008 in an appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 [for short, ‘Education Act, 1983’]. The second respondent by the Order dated 09.07.2008 has rejected the petitioner’s request for the aforesaid grant-in-aid observing that

¶31

¶32

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶33

she would not be entitled to such benefit according to the opinion of the Chief Accountant and Financial Advisor. The petitioner’s aforesaid appeal as against this order under Section 130 of the Education Act, 1983 is rejected by the order dated 08.08.2011 primarily on the ground that the benefit of ‘Four Advance Increments’ , which is later restricted to ‘Two Advance Increments’ is not extended to Primary School Teachers in aided institutions.

¶34

The petitioner has called in question the Order dated 08.08.2011 before this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.44334/2011 which is disposed of by Order dated 09.11.2012 restoring the appeal for reconsideration, and this Court’s order reads as follows:

¶35

“Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent at Annexure-H in Appeal No.13/2010 stands quashed. The 1^st respondent - Appellate Authority is directed to reconsider the appeal afresh by taking

¶36

¶37

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶38

into account the Government orders and extension of benefit of four advanced increments to the similarly placed teachers in private aided schools and pass appropriate orders as early as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶39

After this Court’s order, the petitioner’s appeal is once again taken up for consideration and now stands disposed of by the impugned order dated 07.04.2014. The petitioner’s request is rejected on the ground that the benefit of advance increments is extended only to Teachers with certain aided institutions and the petitioner cannot rely upon the grant of such benefit because those institutions are situated in another District, and also on the ground that the advancement increment is withdrawn completely with effect from 24.07.2003.

¶40

Sri. A C Balaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues in support of the petition

¶41

¶42

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶43

contending that as seen from the Government Order dated 20.08.1976 [Annexure-B], the benefit of ‘Four Advance Increments’ is sanctioned even to the Primary School Teachers with aided Schools by the order dated 22.04.1975. The Government Order dated 20.08.1976 is to extend the benefit of ‘Four Advance Increments’ to Second Division Clerks and SSLC Grade Teachers. Later, the ‘Four Advance Increments’ is reduced to ‘Two Advance Increments’. The petitioner, who is appointed on 01.07.1977, would be entitled to ‘Two Advance Increments’ in terms of the aforesaid Order dated 22.04.1975. This aspect has not at all been considered.

¶44

Sri A C Balaraj, relying upon this Court’s order in ‘S C Basavarajappa and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others’ reported in ILR 2005 KAR 3879 , next contends that in view of the proviso to Section 87 of the Education Act, 1983, there cannot be any disparity between the Teachers

¶45

¶46

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶47

employed with the Government Schools and aided Schools and the aforesaid decision is an authority rendered in the light of these provisions and the settled proposition that there must be equal pay for equal work .

¶48

Sri M S Nagaraja, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 131 of the Education Act, 1983 and there is no reason for this Court’s interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner must be relegated to the alternative remedy. The learned Additional Government Advocate, who was granted leave to take a stand on the petitioner’s reliance upon the Government Order dated 22.04.1975 and to ascertain whether the benefit of ‘Advance Increments’ is extended to even Primary School Teachers with aided institution vide this Government Order, can

¶49

¶50

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶51

only reiterate the contention that the authenticity of this document is disputed.

¶52

The rival submissions are considered. The

¶53

question of the petitioner’s entitlement to ‘Two Advance Increments’ either for the period between 01.07.1977 and till 24.07.2003 or any other period will have to be considered in the light of the question whether such benefit was extended to the Primary School Teachers with aided institutions by the order dated 22.04.1975 which is referred to in the Government Order dated 20.08.1976 [Annexure-B] and this Court’s decision in S C Basavarajappa supra.

¶54

The second respondent, the original Authority, has not even applied its mind to ascertain whether the benefit of ‘Advance Increments’ was ever extended to the Primary School Teachers with aided Institutions, and even if not extended, whether they

¶55

¶56

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶57

could be denied such benefit in the light of this Court’s aforesaid decision. Therefore, it would be appropriate to set aside the first respondent’s impugned Order dated 07.04.2014 [Annexure-L] and the second respondent’s Order dated 09.07.2008 [Annexure-H] and restore the proceedings to the second respondent for reconsideration.

¶58

The second respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner’s case for grant of ‘Two Advance Increments’ for the period commencing from 01.07.1977 [ the date of her appointment ] or any other period as may be permissible in law and whether the benefit was indeed extended to Primary School Teachers with the aided institutions vide the Government Order dated 22.04.1975 as referred to in the Government Order dated 20.08.1976¹ . The second respondent should also be directed to consider whether even if such benefit is not indeed

¶59

1 A copy of which is annexed to this petition as Annexure-B

¶60

10 -

¶61

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶62

extended to the Primary School Teachers with the aided institutions, the same must be extended such benefit in the light of this Court’s decision in S C Basavarajappa supra.

¶63

Further, given the fact that this lis is continued over one and half decades, the second respondent should be directed to decide on the aforesaid question in the light of this Court’s observation within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner. Hence the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

[a] The petition is allowed in part,

¶66

and the first respondent’s impugned Order dated 07.04.2014 [Annexure-L] and

¶67

the second respondent’s Order dated 09.07.2008 [Annexure-H] are quashed.

¶68

[b] The petitioner is reserved

¶69

liberty to file a representation enclosing a

¶70

11 -

¶71

WP No. 26554 of 2014

¶72

copy of this order with the second respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt thereof, for reconsideration.

¶73

[c] The second respondent is called upon to consider the petitioner’s request for grant of ‘Two Advance Increments’ and other consequential benefits in the light of this Court’s observation.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

AN/-

Smt S Ambikamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt S Ambikamma v. the Commissioner

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

Smt Anuradha Vs the State of Karnataka

The Mgm Education Society Vs the Director

Dr. B. S. Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Santhosh Kumar Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Akshata K S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B.R. Umesh Vs the Academy of Sanskrit Research