C.Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka by

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19467 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

C.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O C.CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETD. SELECTION GRADE PHYSICAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR, HPS DEGREE COLLEGE, HARAPANAHALLI-583 131, R/A: CHANNAPPANAHATTI, DUMMI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA

¶9

S.SHANTHAMALLU, S/O. H. M. SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RETD. SELECTION GRADE PHYSICAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR, JSS ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE GUNDLUPET - 571 111, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, R/A: NO.6, BLOCK NO.24, BEHIND TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, JSS LAYOUT, MYSURU - 29.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR K B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION),

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶15

M.S. BUILDINGS,

¶16

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA, UNNATHA SHIKSHANA SOUDHA, SHESHADRI ROAD,

¶18

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, NEAR SAHYADRI COLLEGE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.

¶20

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶21

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (A & E) PARK HOUSE,

¶22

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.PRAA.KA.SHI./ KAA/ SHI/ E/ 369/ 14940/ HPS02016-17 DTD 22.02.2017 ANNEXURE-Y ISSUED BY THE R3 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.KAA.SHI.E/ 127/ PINCHANI/ 14940/ CR1/2016-17DTD 25.02.2017 ANNEXURE-Z ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, HOLDING THEM AS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, ARBITRARY ONE, DISCRIMINATORY AND THUS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.Praa.Ka.Shi/ Kaa.Shi.E/ 369/ 14940/ H.P.S./ 2016-17 dated 22.02.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 and the endorsement bearing No.Kaa.Shi.E/ 127/ Pinchani/ 14940/ CR1/ 2016-17 dated 25.02.2017 issued by the respondent No.2. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to extend the revised UGC pay scales of 1996 to the petitioners by fixing their pay at Rs.14,940/- as and when they completed 5 years of service as Selection Grade Physical Education Directors as per the order of Government of India dated 06.11.1998 and as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5855/2008 and to grant consequential monetary benefits such as arrears of salary and retirement benefits etc.,

¶31

2(i). The petitioners contend that the Government of

¶32

India, vide its letter bearing No.F-1-21/87 U.I dated 22.07.1988 had informed all Education Secretaries in the country to sanction UGC pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986 to Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education Instructors in Universities and Colleges in the country. It had prescribed

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶35

similar pay scales for Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education Instructors. It was stated in Appendix - II of the said letter that librarian and physical education personnel in a college who had put in 8 years of service would be placed in Senior Scale and Librarian and Physical Education Personnel who had put in more than 8 years of service and who did not possess a Ph.D would be placed in scale of Selection Grade. Similar provision had also been made in case of Teachers. It is contended that the State Government had issued orders in the year 1990 and 1991 extending the Revised UGC pay scales with effect from 01.01.1986 to Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education Instructors in Government and Aided Colleges under the control of the Department of Collegiate Education.

¶36

(ii) The petitioners contend that Physical Education Instructors and Librarians were also performing the duties similar to that of Teachers and were drawing salary similar to Teachers. They contend that on the direction of UGC, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 17.11.1997 and 27.06.1998 treating the Physical Education Instructors and Librarian on par with teachers.

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶39

(iii) The petitioners contend that the revision of pay scales was to be given effect from 01.01.1996. Accordingly, the Government of India addressed a letter bearing No.F-121/87 U.I dated 27.07.1998 to all Education Secretaries sanctioning the UGC pay scales of teachers in Universities and Colleges. The petitioners contended that the Librarian and Physical Education Personnel were treated as teachers by the Government of India, UGC and the State of Karnataka. In terms of the orders referred to above, the pay Revision Letter dated 27.07.1998 had also referred to them as “Revision of pay scale of teachers", which included librarians and physical education instructors. However, in the latest revision, it was stated that a lecturer of a college who had put in 6 years of service would be placed in Senior Scale and lecturer who had put in 5 years of service and who does not possess a Ph.D would be placed in the scale of Selection Grade, likewise, provision was made in case of Physical Education Directors and Librarians also. It was mentioned in the letter dated 27.07.1998 referred supra that the revised scales of pay would be given prospective effect from the date of issuance of the letter. This was followed by letter addressed by the

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶41

Government of India on 22.09.1998 clarifying that the allowances other than Dearness Allowance would be admissible with effect from 01.08.1997. It is contended that in supersession of the above letter dated 22.09.1998, the Government of India addressed a letter bearing No.F-1-22/97U.I dated 06.11.1998 stating therein:

¶42

"1. PAY SCALES i) The revised scales mentioned in Annexure-I of our letter dated 27.7.1998 shall be effective from 1.1.1996. Accordingly, the Annexure - II enclosed with the letter referred to may be treated as withdrawn.

¶43

ii) The fixation of pay of Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers in the pre-revised scale of Rs.3700-1254950-150-5700/who were selected strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the UGC and who were in position as Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers as on 1.1.1996, will be made in a manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs.14940/-, in the revised scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 as and when they complete 5 years in the grade" .

¶44

(iv) It is contended that UGC had issued a notification

¶45

dated 24.12.1998 following the above communication. The petitioners contend that in the letter dated 06.11.1998 addressed by the Government of India, it was stated that the fixation of pay of Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers in the

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶48

pre-revised scale of Rs.3700-125-4950-150-5700/- who were selected strictly in accordance with rules and regulations framed by the UGC and who were working as Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers as of 01.01.1996 would be made in a manner that they would get their pay scale fixed at minimum of Rs.14,940/-, in the pay scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 as and when they completed 5 years in the grade. The petitioners contend that the only criterion for fixation of pay at Rs.14,940/was that the Lecturers/ /Librarian/Physical Education Personnel should be in the Selection Grade prior to 01.01.1996.

¶49

The State Government issued a Government Order dated 15.11.1999 following the communication addressed by the Government of India, extending the Revised UGC Pay Scales with effect from 01.01.1996 to the Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education Instructors in Government and Aided Colleges. Contrarily, the pay scales of Librarians and Physical Education Personnel who had completed 5 years of service in that grade as on 01.01.1996 was fixed at Rs.14,940/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and also as and when they had completed 5 years of service in Selection Grade. However, in some areas they were denied the fixation of pay scale at

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶51

Rs.14,940/- stating that the fixation has been provided before Lecturers. It is contended that the issue of denial of fixation of pay scale at Rs.14,940/- with effect from 01.01.1996 came up for consideration before Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5855/2008. The Co-ordinate Bench referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court and held that the petitioner therein, was entitled to fixation of pay at Rs.14,940/- with effect from 01.01.1996. This judgment was challenged in Writ Appeal No.3750/2009. The Division Bench after considering the contentions urged therein rejected the contention of the State Government and held that the Government order should not be read in isolation but should be read with conjunction giving weightage for the persons who had put in longer period of service, which was more than 5 years. It was contended that following the judgment of the Division Bench, the State Government re-fixed the pay scale to all the petitioners in W.P.No.5855/2008 subject to the outcome of the special leave petition that may be filed. The judgment of the Division Bench was then challenged in SLP (C) No.8211/2011. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on 12.05.2011. The petitioner contend that following the

¶52

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶53

judgment of the Division Bench which was upheld by the Apex Court, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.65861-62/2012 was pleased to grant the relief. Following the above, the respondents have stated that they have implemented the order and have fixed the pay scale at Rs.14,940/- with effect from 01.01.1996. The petitioners therefore contended that they are also entitled for the revision of their pay scales and to be fixed at Rs.14,940/- with effect from 01.01.1996. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3271/2020 and contended that under similar circumstances, this Court had granted relief and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to be treated on par.

¶54

4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents

¶55

fairly submits that the issue in this writ petition is squarely covered on all fours by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, this writ petition also deserves to be disposed off on similar terms.

¶56

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9023 WP No. 19467 of 2022

¶57

5. Consequently, the following order is passed:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶60

ii) The impugned endorsement issued to the petitioners bearing No.Praa.Ka.Shi/ Kaa.Shi.E/ 369/ 14940/ H.P.S./ 2016-17 dated 22.02.2017 and Kaa.Shi.E/ 127/ Pinchani/ 14940/ CR1/ 2016-17 dated 25.02.2017 are quashed.

¶61

iii) The petitioners are entitled for re-fixation of their pay scale at Rs.14,940/- with effect from 01.01.1996.

¶62

iv) It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶63

v) This shall be complied within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶64

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶65

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

C.Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri K Channabasavaiah Vs Sri K a Ramanjanappa

S Suresh Vs Smt Rajitha R

Kalasaiah Vs Harish

Sri Kumara N Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Krishna Raj Vs State of Karnataka

M.Krishna Vs the Union of India