Allowed

Jagadeesh M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2024WP/21554/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-teaching staff of private colleges sought direction to the trust to fix regular government-parity pay scales instead of consolidated salary. Court held Rule 5 mandates equal pay, allowed the petition and directed payment of arrears with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 5-7 directed to pay government-parity pay scales under Rule 5 and arrears from filing date with 6% p.a. interest within three months.

Jagadeesh M Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 21554 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JAGADEESH M, D/O LATE MARAPPA D, AGED: 25 YEARS, WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,

¶10

ARUN RAKSHITH, S/O ANANTHA SHAYANA VE, AGED: 43 YEARS, WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,

¶11

RAVI KUMAR T, S/O THIMMA HANUMIAH, AGED: 33 YEARS, WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,

¶12

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O NANJAIAH, AGED: 30 YEARS, WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,

¶14

NAGARAJU N, S/O NARASIMHIAH, AGED: 40 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST.INSTRUCTOR,

¶15

SRINIVAS K, S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED: 45 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶17

NASRENDRA BABU K.A, S/O LATE APPAIAH, AGED: 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. INSTRUCTOR,

¶18

ABHISHEK GOWDA S D, S/O DEVARAJA, AGED: 24 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. INSTRUCTOR,

¶19

SRINIVAS K R , S/O RAMESH, AGED: 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. INSTRUCTOR,

¶20

DHANANJAYA H U, S/O UDAYASHANKAR R H, AGED: 30 YEARS, WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR,

¶21

ERANNA K, S/O KALLAYYA, AGED: 33 YEARS, WORKIGN AS ASST. LIBRARIAN,

¶22

GOVINDARAJU U K, S/O UMESHAPPA, AGED: 35 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. LIBRARIAN,

¶23

NANJEGOWDA V , S/O VISHAKANTEGOWDA, AGED: 38 YEARS, WORKING AS EXAM SUPERINTENDENT, RAJARAJESHWARI COLLEGE OF ENGINERING, #14, RAMOHALLI CROSS, MYSURU ROAD, KUMBOLGODU, BENGALURU - 560 074.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶25

M RAMESHA,

¶26

S/O R. MAHALINGAIAH, AGED: 34 YEARS, WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR, RAJARAJESHWARI COLLEGE OF NURSING, KAMBHIPURA, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 074.

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTEMNT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶31

THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶32

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY TS REGISTRAR, JNANA SANGAMA CAMPUS, BELAGAVI - 590 018.

¶33

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNCIAL EDUCATION (AICTE), REPRESENTED BY TS CHAIRMAN, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110 070.

¶34

MOOGAMBIGAI CHARITABLE EDUCATION TRUST, REPRESENTED BY TS CHAIRMAN, KAMBIPURA, KENGERI HOBLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 074.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶37

THE PRINCIPAL, RAJARAJESWARI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, #14, RAMOHALLI CROSS, MYSORE ROAD, KUMBALGOD, BENGALURU - 560 074.

¶38

THE PRINCIPAL, RAJARAJESWARI COLLGE OF NURSING, KAMBHIPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 074.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R7; SMT. T.S. ANUPAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; R3 - SERVED, R4 SERVED)

¶41

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 22.11.2018, VIDE ANENXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT TO APPROPRIATELY FIX THE BASIC PAY OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT AND DIRECT TO GRANT THE REGULAR PAY SCALES, ANNUAL INCREMENTS AND ARREARS OF SALARY AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO ENSURE AND MONITOR THE FIXATION OF THE PAY SCALES TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.,

¶42

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

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking mandamus against respondent No.5-Trust to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners on 22.11.2018, wherein a request was made by the petitioners to fix the basic pay of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and grant regular pay scale, annual increments and arrears of salary as against the consolidated salary paid by respondent No.5-Trust.

¶46

The petitioners are working under respondent No.6-Management, which is managed by respondent No.5-

¶47

Trust. The petitioners claimed that they are working as non-teaching staff in respondent No.6-Institution. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they are appointed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 by following the process of selection by taking note of their qualification, experience, age and other eligibility conditions. The petitioners claimed that they were appointed by respondent No.6-Institution in the year 2006-2007 and onwards and all the petitioners

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶49

hold the requisite qualifications and eligibility prescribed for the post for which they are holding. Petitioners, through their union, have tendered detailed representation requesting the respondent-management to pay salary on par with their counterparts in the government engineering colleges and institutions. The captioned petition is filed, feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No.5-Trust in not considering the representation submitted by the petitioners.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to Rule 5 of the Karnataka Private Education Institutions (D & C) Rules (for short, 'Rules'), would contend that the petitioners who are employed in a private institution are entitled to an equal pay scale in terms of Rule 5 of the above said Rules. He would further point out that the respondent-Institution is bound to adhere to the above said Rule and fix the regular pay scale of the petitioners. He would vehemently argue and contend that the inaction on the part of respondents amounts to violation of Rule 5

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶53

and therefore, he would request this Court to issue appropriate directions to the respondent-Institution. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the batch of petitions which are produced at Annexures-M and N.

¶54

Heard learned counsel on record. I have given

¶55

my anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by this Court in similar set of facts.

¶56

On reading Rule 5 of the Rules, the question

¶57

that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether the petitioners, who are employed by respondent No.5-Trust as non-teaching staff are entitled to equal pay for equal work at par with other government employees. This issue has been dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench and given quietus by placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.S.Anand and

¶58

others v. The Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeth (Regd.) Bangalore and Another¹ . The Co-ordinate

¶59

1 (1998) 3 KAR.L.J. 293

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶62

Bench, while examining the object of Rule 5, was of the view that the petitioners who are employed by private institutions cannot be denied the benefit of equal pay, i.e., conferred on the employees of government educational institutions. The Co-ordinate Bench judgment cited by the petitioner clearly reveals that the employees of the private educational institutions cannot be denied the same pay scale and such a denial would violate the prohibitions contained in Rule 5 of the Rules. The Co-ordinate Bench in identical cases directed the educational institutions where the petitioners in the connected petitions were employed to pay a pay scale at par with the employees employed in the government educational institutions. The Co-ordinate Bench went one step further and directed to pay arrears of pay scale to the employees employed in private educational institutions along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶63

If the rights of employees under private institutions are protected by legislation, more particularly

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶66

under Rule 5 of the Rules, it is not open for respondent No.6-Management to deny the benefit of equal pay at par or as provided with Rule 5 or Rule 3(b) of the 1978 and 2005 Rules, respectively. Respondent No.5-Trust is bound to adhere to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.S.Anand and Others (supra). If the petitioners, are employed in private unaided educational institutions and are discharging the same duty they are entitled for equal pay as conferred on the employees employed in government institutions. Rule 5 of the Rules equally contemplates that the pay scale of employees of private institutions cannot be lower than the pay scale of a corresponding post in government educational institutions. By denying equal pay scales to the employees who are employed in private educational institutions, the respondent -management has violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of Indian.

¶67

The petitioners are legally entitled for equal pay

¶68

and respondent No.5-Trust which is bound by Rule 5, is

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:163 WP No. 21554 of 2019

¶71

equally under obligation to pay equal pay. Therefore, this is a fit case where directions need to be issued to the respondent No.5-Trust. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶74

ii. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 22.11.2018 vide Annexure-J and are hereby directed to adhere to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules and pay the same pay scales to the petitioners as it is applicable to similar posts in government educational institutions;

¶75