Allowed

Dr H R Jayamma v. the Registrar

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024WP/8138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A re-employed retired professor was denied salary for January to March 2021 because the department failed to furnish attendance extracts. Holding the endorsement unsustainable, the Court set it aside and directed payment of the salary within four weeks with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 10.01.2024 quashed; respondents to pay January–March 2021 salary within four weeks with 6% interest till payment.

Dr H R Jayamma Vs the Registrar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:14405 WP No. 8138 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8138 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. H R JAYAMMA W/O DR. B. SHANTHA VEERANAGOUD AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RETIRED PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BENGALURU UNIVERSITY R/O NO.56/14, 2^ND MAIN BINNEY LAYOUT, 3^RD STAGE VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU – 40 (PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR S C, ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT OF AND: KARNATAKA

¶10

THE REGISTRAR BENGALURU UNIVERSITY GNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU – 560 056

¶11

THE FINANCE OFFICER BENGALURU UNIVERSITY GNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU – 560 056

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:14405 WP No. 8138 of 2024

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BENGALURU UNIVERSITY GNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU – 560 056

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT.ASHWINI OBULESH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2 BEARING NO.HA KAA VI-5/ HIMBARAHA/2023-24 DATED 10/01/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-J BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing endorsement dated 10.01.2024 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-J declining salary from January, 2021 to March, 2021 on the ground that respondent No.3 has not furnished attendance extracts of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶22

and learned counsel appearing for respondents.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:14405 WP No. 8138 of 2024

¶25

The short question that falls for consideration is;

¶26

Whether respondent Nos.1 to 3 having re-employed petitioner, who superannuated on 31.12.2020 and having extracted work from petitioner by conducting classes through on-line, can decline salary for three months i.e., from January, 2021 to March, 2021?

¶27

It is forthcoming from records that respondent

¶28

Nos.1 and 2 are insisting respondent No.3 to furnish attendance extracts to pay salary from January, 2021 to March, 2021.

¶29

On bare perusal of Annexure-A, it is clearly evident

¶30

that based on the recommendation of the Chairperson, the petitioner herein vide order dated 19.01.2021 was re-employed as a Professor in the Department of Education, Bengaluru University w.e.f. 01.01.2021 till end of the ongoing odd semester as per calendar of events for the academic year 2020-21.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14405 WP No. 8138 of 2024

¶32

The respondents, pursuant to re-employment of the petitioner, have extracted work and petitioner has worked till September, 2021. Though respondents have paid salary from April, 2021 to September, 2021, however, on account of inaction on the part of respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have declined to pay salary from January, 2021 to March, 2021. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside by this Court.

¶33

If petitioner is re-employed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 19.01.2021 and if petitioner has accomplished task of imparting education pursuant to re-employment for a period of 9 months, the respondents cannot make petitioner to run pillar to post. Insistence by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner should produce documents relating to on-line classes conducted by him appears to be atrocious and unreasonable.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶35

have sent several reminders to respondent No.3 to furnish attendance extracts. Be that as it may, even in absence of

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14405 WP No. 8138 of 2024

¶37

attendance extracts, if he was re-employed w.e.f 19.01.2021 and has worked as a Professor till September, 2021, there cannot be any further investigation to decline salary to which he is legally entitled, whether respondent No.3 furnishes attendance extracts or not. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having re-employed petitioner, which is not in dispute, are bound to pay salary from January, 2021 to March, 2021.

¶38

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶41

(ii) The impugned endorsement bearing No.HaKAA Vi-5/Himbaraha /2023-24 dated 10.01.2024 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-J is set-aside.

¶42

(iii) Respondents are hereby directed to pay salary for a period between January, 2021 to March, 2021 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:14405 WP No. 8138 of 2024

¶45

(iv) Respondents are liable to pay 6% interest from the date it fell due till the date of payment.

¶46

(v) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Dr H R Jayamma v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr H R Jayamma v. the Registrar

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

Dr Amit P Vs Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences

Sri Rudragouda Vs the Coffee Board

Smt Indumathi M Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Kairalee Nikethan Education Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Darshan G B., Vs the State of Karnataka

Joseph C Vs the Director (a and Hr)