Shri Prabhulingayya S/O Shivayya Gundaganti Vs the State of Karnataka

I) DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 (1) AND (2) OF THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EMPLOYEES REGULATION OF PAY, PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS) ACT 2014 (KARNATAKA ACT 7 OF 2014) DATED 12/02/2014 MAPA 23 SHAK VARSHA 1935 NO.115 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSEQUENTLY STRUCK DOWN THE SAID PROVISIONS AS ULTRA-VIRUS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶27

II) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 RELEASE PENSIONERY BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF INITIAL APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER.

¶28

III) ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶29

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7389 WP No. 102077 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶35

The petitioners are before this Court seeking

¶36

for the following reliefs:

¶37

I. Declare the provisions of Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees Regulation of Pay, Pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014 (Karnataka Act 7 of 2014) dated 12/02/2014 MAPA 23 SHAK VARSHA 1935 No.115 vide Annexure-D passed by the 1^st respondent as unconstitutional and consequently strike down the said provisions as ultra-virus of the constitution of India.

¶38

II. Issue writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to release pensionery benefits from the date of initial appointment of petitioner.

¶39

III. Issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow the petition with exemplary cost, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7389 WP No. 102077 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶43

parties.

¶44

The petitioner No.1 was appointed as SDC on 01.07.1986, petitioner No.2 was appointed on*06.09.1988 as System-Analyst and petitioner No.3 was appointed as Assistant Instructor (E and C Department) on 29.08.1987 in the 3^rd respondent – Institution.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis is pending consideration before the Division Bench for it having been answered in favour of the Teachers. In an order passed in the case of Shri

¶46

Manjunath K.R. S/o. Late Krishnaraje Urs Vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.519/2021, disposed of on 10^th February 2021, noticing the fact that the matter is pending consideration before the Division Bench, this Court in identical circumstances has passed the following order:

¶47

“2. The petitioner in the writ petition was appointed as Lecture in Geography of a private

¶48

Corrected vide Court order dated 21.7.2025 . Sd/(PSYJ)

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7389 WP No. 102077 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

aided educational institution to teaching post. He contend that his claim is covered in terms of order dated 16.08.2010 passed in W.P. No.25447/2010, order dated 22.09.2011 passed in W.A.No.4788/2010, order dated 02.07.2012 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.7365/2012, the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Apex Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.2364/2012, Government Order dated 22.02.2013, the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.11299-11309/2013 and the order dated 16.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.29293- 94/2013.

¶52

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State would accept that the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgments but submits that the matter is pending before the learned Division Bench.

¶53

This Court in W.P. Nos.9623-24/2015 disposed of on 13.01.2016, while noticing the fact of the pendency of writ appeal No.2476/2015, has held as follows:

¶54

“4. But in order to overcome the judgments of this Court, the State had enacted the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulations of pay, pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014, thereby denying the pay scale of University Grants Commission for the period mentioned above. The said Act was challenged by filing large numbers of writ petitions. The writ petitions were decided by common judgment in the case of Dr. B.K. Naik (supra). By the said judgment, this Court had struck down the Act as unconstitutional. This Court had further directed the Government to

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7389 WP No. 102077 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

pay salary to the petitioners therein, and to others similarly situated persons, as was being paid before the impugned enactment. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners before this Court is to extend the benefits of said judgment to them as well.

¶58

The learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment dated 10-7- 2015 passed in the case of Dr.B.K.Naik (supra) has been challenged before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 27- 11-2015 passed by the learned Division Bench is as under:

¶59

“Insofar as the in- service respondents are concerned, we record the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject, however, to the result of the writ appeals. However, they are restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of pay”.

¶60

According to the said order, the learned Division Bench has recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8175 WP No. 100438 of 2023 their current emoluments in terms of the re- fixation, subject to the result of the writ appeals.

¶61

Considering the fact that the learned Advocate General has made a

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7389 WP No. 102077 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

statement before the learned Division Bench, and in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Dr.B.K. Naik (supra), this Court also directs the State to re-fix the pay scale payable to the petitioners. However, it should be made amply clear that the re-fixation of the pay scale would be subject to the decision of the writ appeal pending before this Court in Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015.”

¶65

Since the petitioner is similarly situated and the issue raised is also similar, the writ petition stands disposed in terms of the aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.”

¶66

Further, in the case of Sri A. Srikantegowda S/o. Appajigowda Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P. No.3443/2021, disposed off on 18th February 2021, wherein this Court had disposed off the petition by observing as follows:

¶67

“2. The petitioner in the writ petition was appointed as a Lecturer on 17.06.1991, to a of 2023 teaching post in Sri. Sardar Vallabhabai Patel PU College, a private aided educational institution. He contends that the claim is covered in terms of order dated 16.08.2010 passed in W.P. No.25447/2010, order dated 22.09.2011 passed in W.A.No.4788/2010, order dated 02.07.2012 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.7365/2012, the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Apex Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.2364/2012, Government Order dated 22.02.2013, the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.11299- 11309/2013 and the order dated 16.07.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.29293-94/2013.

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7389 WP No. 102077 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State would accept that the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgments but submits that the matter is pending before the learned Division Bench.

¶71

This Court in W.P. Nos.9623-24/2015 disposed of on 13.01.2016, while noticing the fact of the pendency of writ appeal No.2476/2015, has held as follows:

¶72

“4. But in order to overcome the judgments of this Court, the State had enacted the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulations of pay, pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014, thereby denying the pay scale of University Grants Commission for the period mentioned above. The said Act was challenged by filing large numbers of writ petitions. The writ petitions were decided by common judgment in the case of Dr.B.K. Naik (supra). By the said judgment, this Court had struck down the Act as unconstitutional. This Court had further directed the Government to pay salary to the petitioners therein, and to others similarly situated persons, as was being paid before the impugned enactment. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners before this Court is to extend the benefits of said judgment to them as well.

¶73

The learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment dated 10-7- 2015 passed in the case

¶74

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7389 WP No. 102077 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

of Dr.B.K.Naik (supra) has been challenged before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 27- 112015 passed by the learned Division Bench is as under:

¶77

“Insofar as the in-service respondents are concerned, we record the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject, however, to the result of the writ appeals. However, they are restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of pay”.

¶78

According to the said order, the learned Division Bench has recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the refixation, subject to the result of the writ appeals.

¶79

Considering the fact that the learned Advocate General has made a statement before the learned Division Bench, and in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Dr.B.K. Naik (supra), this Court also directs the State to re-fix the pay scale payable to the petitioners. However, it should be made amply clear that the re- fixation of the pay scale would be subject to the

¶80

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7389 WP No. 102077 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

decision of the writ appeal pending before this Court in Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015.”

¶83

Since the petitioner is similarly situated and the issue raised is also similar, the writ petition stands disposed in terms of the aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.”

¶84

Since the petitioners are similarly situated and

¶85

the issue is also similar, the writ petition would stand

¶86

disposed off in terms of aforequoted orders with the direction to the State to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶87

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶88

CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Shri Prabhulingayya S/O Shivayya Gundaganti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prabhulingayya S/O Shivayya Gundaganti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinayak Dnyaneshwar Kawale Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ratnamma W/O Anurajappa Vs Smt. Suma C W/O Lokesh S. K

Sri. R. Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Prabhakara M Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramchandra Lakkappa Gennur S/O Lakkappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Umesh S/O. Bhairu Chougule Vs Smt. Asha W/O. Umesh Chougule