Partly allowed

Sri. M.L. Srinivasa Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2024WP/20870/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a lecturer facing disciplinary punishment, approached for pay scale benefits. Court directed the Director of Technical Education to consider the request for revised pay scales and allowances effective from specified dates, subject to the existing disciplinary order, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's request for revised pay scales and allowances within three months, subject to the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 07.09.2012.

Sri. M.L. Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20870 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M.L. SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O THE LATE M H LAKSHMAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT, P V P POLYTECHNIC, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560056.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.24 12:31:16 +0530

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THANTHRIKA BHAVAN PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL, P V P POLYTECHNIC, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560056.

¶16

THE PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETHA WELFARE TRUST(REGD), IST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. BRANCH OFFICE, DR A I T CAMPUS, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560056, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶20

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. HARISH H.B., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

¶22

227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT SELECTION LECTURER PAY SCALE FORM 04.09.2011, BAND PAY IV SCALE FROM 11.01.2015 AND 7TH AICTE REVISED PAY SCALE FROM 01.04.2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO GRANT ALL ALLOWANCES FEMINITIES FOR WHICH HE IS ENTITLED IN TERM OF ANNX-Q IN NO.DTE/ADMIM/EST17/64/22/612 DTD 23.08.2023; DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO FIX THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF HIS ENTITLEMENT WITHOUT BREAKING HIS SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY BENEFITS IN TERMS OF PAY SCALE FIXED TO AT SL.NO.14 OF RAJESEKHAR REDDY UNDER ANNX-Q WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE PUNISHMENT AS IT WAS NOT APPROVED BY R1 AND 2.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is working as a Lecturer with the

¶28

third respondent [M/s P.V.P Polytechnic] in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. The petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents to grant to him Selection Grade Lecturer Scale of Pay with effect from 04.09.2021, in IV Pay Band with effect from 11.01.2015 and 7^th AICTE Pay Scale from 01.04.2018 and for consequential benefits. The petitioner has also sought for alternative prayer, and this alternative prayer is for directions to the first and second respondents to fix his salary in the Selection Grade Pay Scale effective from 04.09.2011 and IV Pay Band Pay Scale from 11.01.2015.

¶29

It is undisputed that the petitioner's

¶30

request for grant of [a] Selection Grade Lecturer Scale Pay, [b] IV Pay Band, and [c] 7^th AICTE revised Pay Scale is not considered because of the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 07.09.2012 [ Annexure-H ].

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶32

The Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 07.09.2012 on conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, has reduced the petitioner's basic pay scale [in the pay scale of Rs.15,600/to Rs.39,100/-] to Rs.15,600/- along with denial of promotion to the Time Scale of Pay Grade for a period of two years effective from the date of its order. The Disciplinary Authority has also stipulated that the suspension period undergone by the petitioner shall be treated as leave to his credit, and if leave is not available in his credit, to treat the same as Leave Without Allowance [LWA].

¶33

The petitioner has called in question the Disciplinary Authority's order under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 [for short, " the Education Act" ] in Revision Petition No.28/2014, but this petition is dismissed on 05.01.2016 inter alia on the ground of maintainability. The second respondent, with the initiation of these proceedings,

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶35

has written to the third respondent on 23.08.2023

¶36

[ Annexure-Q ] inter alia calling for the details of the period under which the petitioner was kept under suspension opining that the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings and obtaining permission from the competent authority could be considered on receipt of such information. Presently, the third respondent

¶37

has furnished such information by its Communication dated 28.02.2024 [ Annexure-S ], and this Communication refers to the afore punishment by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶38

Sri. G. Janardhana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's request for grant of Selection Grade Lecturer Pay Scale, IV Pay Band, and 7^th AICTE revised Pay Scale from their respective dates, must be considered independent of the outcome in the disciplinary proceedings. Sri. G. Janardhana, in elaboration, submits that the Disciplinary Authority's

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶40

order stipulates the punishment in exercise of the powers under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 [for short, 'the 2003 Rules' ], but if any punishment is to be imposed under these Rules there must be prior approval of the State Government as is contemplated under second Proviso to Rule 32 of the 2003 Rules. The learned counsel submits that it is undisputed that such permission is not taken.

¶41

Sri. G. Janardhana next submits

¶42

that in any event, the petitioner's request must be considered expeditiously. The learned counsel emphasizes that if for some reason the Disciplinary Authority's order cannot be ignored, the petitioner's request for grant of Selection Grade Lecturer Pay Scale, IV Pay Band, and 7^th AICTE revised Pay Scale, must be considered in the light of the Disciplinary Authority's order as is requested as an alternative prayer.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶45

In response, Sri. Harish H.V., the

¶46

learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents [ the Institution and the Trust, which runs the Institution ], submits the following.

¶47

[a] The 2003 Rules would apply only to Colleges as defined under Rule 2(d)¹ of the 2003 Rules, and because the third respondent, which imparts polytechnic education and not education in science, commerce or law, could be outside the fold of these Rules.

¶48

[b] Prior to the Education Act, the discipline and control of the employees with polytechnic institutions were controlled by the provisions of Karnataka Private Educational Institutions

¶49

1 The expression "College" in the 2003 Rules is defined to mean a Government, local authority or a Private Aided Arts, Science, Commerce or Law College affiliated to the University under Section 59 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (Karnataka Act 29 of 2001) imparting sound and secular instruction .

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶51

(Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 [for short,

¶52

‘ the KPEI Act’ ].

¶53

[c] Though this Act is repealed, the provisions of Section 146(3) of the Education Act saves the Act until appropriate Rules are framed under the Act, and insofar as Technical Institutions [ such as polytechnic institutions ], the Rules have not been framed so far.

¶54

[d] The provisions of the KPEI Act do not contemplate prior approval for imposing punishment as is done as is required under 2003 Rules.

¶55

In response to the canvass that the punishment is imposed under the 2003 Rules, Sri. Harish H.V. submits that there is an erroneous reference, but the

¶56

exercise of power is necessarily under the KPEI Act.

¶57

The question as would be obvious

¶58

from the rival submissions is:

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶60

Whether the Disciplinary Authority's order on punishment must prevail if it is not approved by the Competent Authority .

¶61

On behalf of the petitioner, reliance

¶62

is placed upon Rule 32 of the 2003 Rules. The provisions of Section 1(3) of the Rules clearly stipulate that the Rules will apply to all the Government, Local Authority, Private aided and affiliated Colleges under the control of the

¶63

Department of Collegiate Education in Karnataka, and the expression " Colleges" is defined under Section 2(d) of the 2003 Rules to mean Government Colleges and Colleges run by Local Authorities or Private aided institutions imparting education in Arts, Science, Commerce or Law and affiliated to the University under Section 59 of the Karnataka State Universities Act 2000 and is under the control of the Department of Collegiate Education.

¶64

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶65

The third respondent is a Technical

¶66

Institution and is under the aegis of the Director/ Commissioner of Technical Education and its affiliation is subject to AICTE Regulations. These and the definition of its expression “Colleges” under the 2003 Rules are relevant, and mere reference to the provisions of these Rules by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be a reason to hold that the 2003 Rules will apply, especially when it is not brought to this Court's notice any other material to hold that the Disciplinary Authority could have exercised jurisdiction under 2003 Rules given the provisions of the KPEI Act.

¶67

However, if the petitioner cannot get over the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, that cannot be a reason for denying the Selection Grade Lecturer Pay Scale, IV Pay Band, and 7^th AICTE revised Pay Scale subject to the punishment. The second respondent, without waiting

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶70

for further information in the light of the Communication dated 28.02.2024 and because of this order, must expeditiously consider the petitioner's request. Hence, the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

[a] The petition is allowed in part directing the second respondent - the Director/Commissioner of Technical Education - to consider the petitioner's request for grant of Selection Grade Lecturer Pay Scale, IV Pay Band and 7^th AICTE revised Pay Scale from the corresponding effective dates but subject to the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 07.09.2012.

¶73

[b] The second respondent shall accordingly consider and compute the benefits that would be admissible to the petitioner within a period of three

¶74

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:28040 WP No. 20870 of 2023

¶75

[3] months from the date of receipt of

¶76

a certified copy of this order.

¶77

[c] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a fresh representation with a certified copy within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶78

The application in I.A.No.1/2024 stands

¶79

disposed of consequent to this order.

¶80

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶81

Sri. M.L. Srinivasa Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M.L. Srinivasa Reddy 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

Sri. Santhosh Kumar B S Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Chandrakumar S G S/O Late S H Giriyaiah Vs State of Karnataka

K.M. Vedamurthy Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (Bescom)

K R Ravinandan Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Smt. R.Shashirekha Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Matti Vs Mangalore University