Dismissed

The State of Karnataka Depat of Law Justi and Hr Rom No 201 2ND Floor v. Bengaluru Rep Ps v Suresh Limibikai

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2024WA/100291/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the writ appeal filed by the State against an order of the Single Judge. The contested order directed a college instructor to be granted UGC pay-scale with retrospective effect from 5.8.1991. The court distinguished the apex court precedent on delay as the petitioner had acted promptly upon the determination of entitlement.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Karnataka Depat of Law Justi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8438-DB WA No.100291 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO.100291 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, ROOM NO.201, 2^ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. R/BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶13

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, STATE OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI. BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

JAGADISH T R

¶16

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶17

THE JOINT DIRECTOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,

¶18

D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580001.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SURESH S/O MALLAPPA LIMIBIKAI AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. PHYSICAL CULTURAL INSTRUCTOR J.S.S. SAKKARI LAW COLLEGE HEGGERI, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580024.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8438-DB WA No.100291 of 2022

¶25

J.S.S. SAKRI LAW COLLEGE, HEGGERI, OLD HUBLI, HUBBALLI, DIST.DHARWAD-580024 R/BY. ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.103517/2018 & ETC.,

¶29

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This intra-Court appeal is filed against order dated 3.3.2021 passed in WP No.103517/2018, wherein the learned Single Judge directed the respondents, appellants herein to extend the benefit of UGC pay-scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 5.8.1991.

¶32

2. Heard the learned Addl. Government Advocate Sri.M.M. Khannur for the appellants/State, learned counsel Sri.Dinesh M Kulkarni for the respondent and perused the appeal papers.

¶33

3. The appellants herein were the respondents and respondent herein was the petitioner before the learned Single

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8438-DB WA No.100291 of 2022

¶36

Judge. They would be referred to as they stand before the learned Single Judge.

¶37

4. The petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to extend the benefit of UGC pay-scale w.e.f. 5.8.1991 along with consequential benefits and interest by considering Annexures-Q & Q1, representations dated 2.2.2012 & 15.02.2018 respectively. The petitioner was appointed as Physical Cultural Instructor in the 5^th respondent-College on 5.8.1991. In view of order of this Court in WP No.46899/2002 c/w WP No.32730/2003 determining that teachers of Law Colleges would be entitled to UGC pay-scale, the petitioner submitted representation dated 02.02.2012 seeking extension of UGC pay-scale. When respondents failed to consider the representation, the petitioner was before this Court. The learned Single Judge taking note of earlier order of this Court in the writ petition stated above, directed the respondents to pay the recommended UGC pay-scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 5.8.1991.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8438-DB WA No.100291 of 2022

¶40

5. Learned AGA Sri. M.M. Khannur raises one and the

¶41

only contention that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in granting UGC pay-scale w.e.f. 5.8.1991 and submits that at the best, the learned Single Judge could have granted the benefit of UGC pay-scale from three years prior to the date of filing of writ petition. Learned AGA would submit that the writ petition was filed in the year 2018 and he would be entitled to arrears of UGC pay-scale three years prior to date of filing of writ petition and in that regard, he places reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶42

Union of India & Others Vs. Tarsem Singh¹ . Thus, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶43

6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Dinesh M Kulkarni for the respondent supports the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submits that entitlement of UGC pay-scale was determined by order of this Court in WP No.46899/2002 c/w WP No.32730/2003, which was taken up in WA No.10222/2011 & WA No.50040/2012, which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 21.10.2013. It is submitted that the matter was taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP

¶44

1 (2008) 8 SCC 648

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8438-DB WA No.100291 of 2022

¶47

No.12915-12916/2014, which was dismissed by order dated 8.9.2014 on the ground of delay as well as merits. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter submitted representation dated 15.02.2018, which was not considered by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner submitted representation dated 15.02.2018 after disposal of SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court stated supra, hence, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the authority as well as this Court. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of writ appeal papers, the only point that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to, whether impugned order under appeal requires interference?

¶49

8. Answer to the above point would be in the “negative” for the following reasons:

¶50

9. A perusal of the order dated 10.11.2010 passed in WP No.46899/2002 c/w WP No.32730/2003 reveals that entitlement of UGC pay-scale to the Law faculties is determined and ordered to be paid w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The said order was the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8438-DB WA No.100291 of 2022

¶53

subject matter in WA No.10222/2011 and WA No.50040/2012 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.10.2013 dismissed the said appeals confirming the order passed by the learned Single judge, which was taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.12915-12916/2014, which was also dismissed by order dated 8.9.2014 on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The petitioner had submitted representation dated 02.02.2012 requesting extension of UGC pay-scale, but the same was kept pending and not considered by the respondents, even after dismissal of SLP. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.103517/2018, which was rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge, following the decision of learned Single Judge in WP No.46899/2002 c/w WP No.32730/2003, dated 10.11.2010, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.10222/2011 and WA No.50040/2012, dated 21.10.2013.

¶54

10. To the facts of the present case, principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tarsem Singh’s case supra would have no application. In Tarsem Singh’s case supra, claim itself was belated. In the instant case, immediately on determination of entitlement of UGC pay-scale to Law faculties,

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8438-DB WA No.100291 of 2022

¶57

the petitioner submitted representation dated 02.02.2012, in fact, representation was kept pending with the respondents without passing any order. Therefore, delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Hence, we do not find any infirmities in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we agree with the reasons and finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected .

¶58

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36

The State of Karnataka Depat of Law Justi and Hr Rom No 201 2ND Floor v. Bengaluru Rep Ps v Suresh Limibikai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Karnataka Depat of Law Justi and Hr Rom No 201 2ND Floor v. Bengaluru Rep Ps v Suresh Limibikai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shaila W/O Manjappa K.D. Vs the Managing Director

M/S Mary Carpentry Works Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Yallamma W/O Ramesh Ginageri Vs the State Election Commission

Smt.Rukmawwa @ Savitri Vs Ramappa S/O Mallappa

J Manjukumar Vs Yougander C/O Ntr Associates

Smt.Indirabai Vs the Assistant Commissioner