Allowed

Dr G v. Jayaramaiah v the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024WP/3759/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A professor's Sixth Pay Commission arrears were withheld on audit objection that he did not complete his doctorate within three years of study leave. Following the court's earlier order in a similarly placed case and a Division Bench decision, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to release the withheld arrears.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to release withheld arrears of revised pay scale within six months; petitioner granted liberty to file certified copy of order with the second respondent within four weeks.

Dr G v Jayaramaiah Vs the Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21541 WP No. 3759 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3759 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. G. V. JAYARAMAIAH

¶8

S/O LATE SRI. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JNABHARATHI CAMPUS BDA OUTER RING ROD, BENGALURU 560 056.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION M.S. BUIDLIGN, BENGALURU 560 001 RERPESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION PALACE ROD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL

¶17

DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS, BDA OUTER RING ROD, BENGALURU 560 056.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI H.V. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:21541 WP No. 3759 of 2020

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING DIRECT THE R-3 TO REFUND THE AMOUNT RECOVERED FROM THE PETITIONER, BY RELEASING THE WITHHELD ARREARS OF 6TH PAY REVISION ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 10 PERCENT PER ANNUM AS THE R-3 HAS ILLEGALLY RETAINED THE SAME.OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECT THE R-1 AND R2 TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF 6^TH PAY REVISION PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE R-3 ALONG WITH 10 PERCENT INTEREST PER ANNUM, AND PAY THE SAME TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is permitted to avail study leave

¶26

for three years to pursue his Doctoral Course. The petitioner is also paid salary for the aforesaid period of three years. The petitioner has submitted his thesis beyond three years period, and he is awarded Ph.D. The third respondent has withheld a portion of the arrears payable to the petitioner pursuant to the Sixth Pay Commission because of an alleged audit objection on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained his doctorate within 3 [three] years .

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:21541 WP No. 3759 of 2020

¶29

Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, the learned

¶30

counsel for the petitioner, has filed a memo for disposal relying upon the orders of this Court on 16.01.2021 in W.P.No.27469/2019 [ S-RES ] and Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, Sri Gopala Krishna Soodi, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first and second respondents and Sri H.V.Harish, the learned counsel for the third respondent, are heard in the light of this Court's conclusions in W.P.No.27469/2019 and the assertion that the petitioner is similarly placed.

¶31

As regards the similarity in the circumstances between the petitioner and the petitioners in W.P.No.27469/2019, Sri M. Subramanya Bhat relies upon the paragraph - 4 of the order which reads as under:

¶32

In order to pursue their respective doctoral

¶33

degrees under the programme, the petitioners took three years leave and completed the course within the stipulated

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:21541 WP No. 3759 of 2020

¶36

period but for one or more bonafide reasons, failed to submit their thesis within the period of their deputation. However, all of them obtained Ph.D degree within the time permitted to them by the Institute. On completion of their deputation period, the petitioners reported back to duties at the Institute."

¶37

There is no dispute that the observation as aforesaid would apply to the petitioner's case. This Court finally in the light of the decision of a Division Bench in Ravi Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others¹ has disposed of the writ petition directing the concerned institution to release the arrears of revised pay scales, if any, within a period of six months. This Court's order in this regard reads as under:

¶38

b. The third respondent is directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioners or release the arrears of revised pay scales, if any,

¶39

1 2019 (5) Kar. L.J. 209 (DB)

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21541 WP No. 3759 of 2020

¶41

withheld from the petitioners, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶42

If it is undisputed that the petitioners are similarly placed and there must be a direction to pay arrears payable to them pursuant to the sixth pay scale, Sri Harish H.V., the learned counsel for the third respondent, who is granted an opportunity to respond in the light of this Court's direction as aforesaid on the previous hearing date, submits that his instructions are that the third respondent has repeatedly corresponded with the second respondent for payment of arrears and if any direction is to be issued in the light of the third respondent's correspondence as aforesaid, it must be to the second respondent. This assertion remains uncontroverted. Hence, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

[a] The petition is allowed directing the

¶45

second respondent to release arrears of

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:21541 WP No. 3759 of 2020

¶48

the revised pay scale, if withheld, to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶49

[b] The petitioner, to facilitate the same, is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

SA ct:sr

Dr G v. Jayaramaiah v the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr G v. Jayaramaiah v the Principal Secretary

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

N Ramachandra Vs Canara Bank

Smt. J D Vijayakumari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M S Shivaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr K M Mahadevan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rudresh R Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Sri Somashekar N S Vs the State of Karnataka