Allowed

S I Ankali v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/103585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, retired aided educational staff, challenged an endorsement rejecting their claim for additional increment under Rule 6. The Court held they remain entitled as they retired before the rule's deletion. It quashed the rejection order and directed respondents to consider the claim within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement quashed; petition allowed; respondents directed to consider grant of additional increment in three months.

S I Ankali Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13008 WP No. 103585 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.103585 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S. I. ANKALI,

¶9

AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: ASST. TEACHER, NEW ENGLISH SCHOOL ODK HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD - 580 021.

¶10

R.K. JADHAV,

¶11

AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: ASST. TEACHER, NEW ENGLISH SCHOOL ODL HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD - 580 021.

¶12

A.A.KATHAVATE,

¶13

AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ASST. TEACHER, NEW ENGLISH SCHOOL ODK HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD - 580 021.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

S.K. HARLAPUR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ASST. TEACHER, NEW ENGLISH SCHOOL ODK HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD - 580 021.

¶16

R.R. CHOUDRI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: FDC, HARI BHAT PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, HIGH SECTION KUNDAGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD - 581 113.

¶17

N.V. SUNKAD,

¶18

AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ASST.TEACHER, H.F KATTIMANI KANNADA AIDED PREMARY SCHOOL, VIDYANAGR HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD - 580 021.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI K.ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13008 WP No. 103585 of 2024

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, BANGALURU - 01.

¶24

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K. R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶25

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DIET BUILDING, KCD K. R. ROAD, DHARWAD - 580 008.

¶26

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD - 580 008.

¶27

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, RANNEBENNUR, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD - 580 001.

¶28

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, KUNDGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD - 581 113.

¶29

THE FIELD EDUCATION OFFICERS, HUBBALLI CITY, HUBBALLI – 580 009. DIST: DHARWAD.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20-04-2023 NO. A7C.BA.BDTI/2024-25/59 ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 7 AND A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS ON 15-04-2024 AND 21-04-2022 ARE THE COPIES OF WHICH ARE BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B, B1 AND C AND ETC.

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13008 WP No. 103585 of 2024

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Challenging endorsement dated 20.04.2023 issued by respondent no.7 at Annexure-E and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider petitioners’ representation dated 21.04.2022 and 15.04.2024 at Annexures- C, B and B1 respectively, this writ petition is filed.

¶37

Sri K.Anandkumar, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were retired teaching/nonteaching staff of private aided educational institutions, who had passed Kannada Language Examination and were entitled for additional increment as per Rule 6 of Karnataka Civil Service (Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974 (for short, ‘Rules’). Since same was not granted to them, they had submitted representation. Same was erroneously by non-speaking order rejected as per Annexure-E earlier. It was challenged in W.P.no.109402-109405/2019 and connected matters which were disposed of on 24.07.2020 by issuing direction for consideration. However without proper consideration and assigning any reasons, impugned

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13008 WP No. 103585 of 2024

¶39

endorsement at Annexure-E was issued. It was submitted, in W.P.nos.58694-58703/2014 and connected matters disposed of on 28.11.2018, this Court had allowed similar claims and directed respondents to consider claim for grant of additional increment. In that view of matter sought for allowing writ petition.

¶40

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents sought to oppose writ petition.

¶41

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶42

record.

¶43

From above, petitioners retiring from service in teaching/non-teaching posts in aided educational institutions is not in dispute. It is seen petitioners were in service before deletion of Rule 6 of Rules. As such, they would be entitled for benefit of additional increment as held in W.P.no.58694703/2014. Refusal under impugned endorsement merely on ground of direction issued by respondent no.2 would not be

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13008 WP No. 103585 of 2024

¶45

tenable. Therefore, endorsement at Annexure-E requires to be quashed.

¶46

Hence, writ petition is allowed. Annexure-E stands quashed. Respondents are directed to consider case of petitioners for grant of Kannada Language increment as per decision of this Court in W.P.nos.58694-58703/2014 and connected matters disposed of on 28.11.2018. Reconsideration shall be within a period of three months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to petitioners.

¶47

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶48

CLK CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

S I Ankali v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S I Ankali 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun S/O Basavaraj Hyadal Vs the State of Karnataka

Alina D/O Jameelahmed Punekar Vs Shri Jameelahmed S/O Maheboobsab Punekar

Anita Patil D/O. Veeranagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Prasanth Babaji Vs the State of Karnataka

Jyothi D/O. Satwaji Atwadkar Vs Primary Cooperative Agriculture and

Vimala D/O Mahadev Naik Vs the State of Karnataka