Disposed

Wageedabanu M Killedar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024WP/104245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two writ petitions filed by assistant teachers seeking recognition of their posts as High School Assistant Teachers with back wages and benefits. The Court directed the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board to consider pending representations within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the respondent to consider the petitioners' representations within one month.

Wageedabanu M Killedar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11387 WP No. 104250 of 2024 C/W WP No. 104245 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.104250 OF 2024 (S-RES) C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.104245 OF 2024

¶8

IN WP.NO.104250/2024:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAJU S/O. SHYAMRAO KADAM, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ASST. TEACHER (CANTONMENT MARATHI HIGH SCHOOL BELAGAVI), R/O: HOUSE NO.281/67, BALAMUKUND LAYOUT, PANTHBALEKUNDRI, TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591 103.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MANOJ N. BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

¶16

M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE, PIN – 560 001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD – 582 114.

¶18

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 104, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶19

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DEFENSE, DTE GENERAL DEFENSE ESTATE RAKSHA SAMPADA BHAWAN ULAABAATAR MARGA, DELHI CANNT – 110 010.

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11387 WP No. 104250 of 2024 C/W WP No. 104245 of 2024

¶21

THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DIRECTORATE DEFENCE ESTATE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTHERN COMMAND, PUNE – 411 001.

¶22

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD, KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI – 577 428.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI VENKATESH M. KHARVI, DSGI FOR R3 TO R5; SRI APOORVA SOMANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.05.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-K1 AND PASS NECESSARY ORDER TO CONSIDER PETITIONER AS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT TEACHER SINCE HIS APPOINTMENT TILL 2016 AND PROVIDE THE BACK WAGES AND ALSO PROVIDE ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF APPOINTMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶26

IN WP.NO.104245/2024:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

WAGEEDABANU M. KILLEDAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ASST. HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, (CANTONMENT URDU HIGH SCHOOL BELAGAVI), R/O: HOUSE NO.78, 1^ST FLOOR, MARKET STREET, (PENSION GALLI) CAMP BELAGAVI, TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI MANOJ N.BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE, PIN – 560 001.

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11387 WP No. 104250 of 2024 C/W WP No. 104245 of 2024

¶34

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD – 582 114.

¶35

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 104, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶36

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DEFENSE, DTE GENERAL DEFENSE ESTATE RAKSHA SAMPADA BHAWAN ULAABAATAR MARGA, DELHI CANNT – 110 010.

¶37

THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DIRECTORATE, DEFENCE ESTATE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTHERN COMMAND, PUNE – 411 001.

¶38

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD, KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI – 577 428.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI VENKATESH M. KHARVI, DSGI FOR R3 TO R5; SRI APOORVA SOMANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02-05-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-K2 AND PASS NECESSARY ORDER TO CONSIDER PETITIONER AS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT TEACHER SINCE HER APPOINTMENT TILL 2016 AND PROVIDE THE BACK WAGES AND ALSO PROVIDE ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF APPOINTMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11387 WP No. 104250 of 2024 C/W WP No. 104245 of 2024

¶43

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

These writ petitions are filed seeking for following

¶46

reliefs:

¶47

Prayer in W.P.no.104250/2024:

¶48

I. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no.6 authority to consider the representation dated 06.05.2024 vide Annexure-K1 and pass necessary order to consider petitioner as High School Assistant Teacher since his appointment till 2016 and provide the back wages and also provide all consequential benefits from the date of appointment in the interest of justice and equity.

¶49

II. Such other writ of order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fits on the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶50

In prayer W.P.no.104245/2024:

¶51

I. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no.6 authority to consider the representation dated 02-05-2024 vide Annexure-K2 and pass necessary order to consider petitioner as High School Assistant Teacher since her appointment till 2016 and provide the back wages and also provide all consequential benefits from the date of appointment in the interest of justice and equity.

¶52

II. Such other writ of order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fits on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of the justice and equity.

¶53

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11387 WP No. 104250 of 2024 C/W WP No. 104245 of 2024

¶54

Sri Manoj N.Bikkannavar, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have been working as High School Assistant Teachers from date of their appointment in year 2005. But in order of promotion issued in year 2016, they were shown as promoted as High School Assistant Teachers, in which post they were working from inception. It was submitted, until then, petitioners were being paid salary equal to that of a primary school teachers. Therefore, they were entitled for difference in pay.

¶55

Expressing their grievances, petitioners submitted representations as per Annexure-K1 in W.P.no.104250/2024 and Annexure-K2 in W.P.no.104245/2024. Though same is acknowledged received and reasonable time has lapsed, same have remained without consideration. Therefore, seeks for allowing petitions by directing respondents to consider petitioners’ representations.

¶56

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents no.1 and 2, Sri Venkatesh M.Kharvi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents no.3 to 5 and Sri Apoorva

¶57

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11387 WP No. 104250 of 2024 C/W WP No. 104245 of 2024

¶58

Somannavar, learned counsel for respondent no.6 submitted that in case, petitioners’ representations are pending, same would be considered in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

¶59

In view of submission, since from writ petition record, submission of representations by petitioners and their pendency with respondent no.6 is not in dispute, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petitions by directing respondent no.6 to consider representations within one month from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶60

Needless to state that result of consideration shall be informed to petitioners and respondents shall consider specific grievance of petitioners that they were appointed High School Teachers from inception.

¶61

Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶62

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶63

CT-ASC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

¶64

CLK

Wageedabanu M Killedar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wageedabanu M Killedar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheshappa S/O. Vittobappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt Laxmi Godalli Vs Manjunath S/O Kumarswamy

Shivaji S/O. Durgappa Angadi, Vs D a Ravishankar

Smt Srilakshami W/O G R Harsha Vs G R Harsha S/O. O. Rangappa

Ravindra S/O Prabhakar Phatarpekar Vs the Managing Director

Raju S/O Shyamrao Kadam Vs the State of Karnataka