Sri. Satish B. K. Vs the Government of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21420 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SATISH B.K. S/O K. BANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ELEC. AND COMMN. ENGINEERING, M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, BENGALURU-560010.

¶9

SRI. Y.M. RAVINDRANATHA SON OF MALKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ELEC. AND COM. ENGINEERING, M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, BENGALURU-560010.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. SHREEVARSHINI M.R. D/O M.N. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF COMP. SC. ENGINEERING, M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, BENGALURU-560010.

¶12

SRI. A. SHREENIVASA RAO S/O VITHAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ELEC. AND COM. ENGINEERING, M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, BENGALURU-560010.

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶14

SMT. KAMALA H.C. W/O ESWARAPPA M.N. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, BENGALURU-560010.

¶15

SMT. S.O. SUNITHA W/O CHANDRAKANTHA K.O. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, BENGALURU-560010.

¶16

SMT. M.USHA RANI W/O KARUNAKARAN.S AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF COMP.SC. ENGINEERING, M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, BENGALURU-560010.

¶17

SRI. M. GOPAL SON OF LATE MUDALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, BENGALURU-560010.

¶18

SRI. HUCHEERAPPA HARIJAN S/O LATE BASAPPA H, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, MECHANICAL ENGINEER DEPARTMENT, M.E.I. EVENING POLYTECHNIC, RAJAJINGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶19

SRI. SHREEMANTH S/O LATE HANUMANTH RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER,

¶20

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶21

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, BENGALURU-560010.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION), VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶26

DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶27

THE PRINCIPAL M.E.I. POLYTECHNIC, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶28

THE PRINCIPAL M.E.I. EVENING POLYTECHNIC, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶31

SRI. PAVAN SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT ANNEXURE-K DATED 10.11.2020 IN NO.ED167.DTE.2017, FIXING THE CUTOFF DATE ON 7.11.2015 FOR GRANTING PROMOTIONAL BENEFITS TO THE LECTURERS WORKING IN THE POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS IS CONTRARY TO

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶34

AICTE REGULATIONS AND MALAFIDE ONE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PETITIONERS FOR GRANTING PRAYER SOUGHT FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED FOR THE PROMOTION TO PAY BAND-IV PAY SCALE WITHIN 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE SAME AND ALSO THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 IN NO.DTE/ADMIO/EST(17)08/2022/OM/202223/02 PASSED TO THAT EFFECT UNDER ANNEXURE-Q1 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.ED.167.DTE.2017 dated 10.11.2020 fixing the cut-off date for granting promotion to the lecturers working in Polytechnic institutions as 07.11.2015 on the ground that it is contrary to AICTE regulations and the cut-off date cannot be made applicable to them. They have also sought for a declaration that

¶38

they are entitled for promotion to Pay Band-IV Scale within three years from the date of publication of the same and also have challenged the office order bearing No.DTE/ADMIO/EST (17) 08/2022/OM/2022-23/02 dated 23.09.2022. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled for the Pay Band-IV Scale along with interest as per the

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶40

observation made by this Court in W.P.No.8484/2020 c/w W.P.No.3823/2021 in terms of the order dated 06.12.2021. They have also sought for grant/restoration of the Pay Band-IV Scale with all consequential arrears of salary payable in that scale from 01.07.2018.

¶41

(i) The petitioners were appointed to the post of lecturers in various subjects in respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 19.11.2001 and 06.12.2001. They contend that on coming to know that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had granted Pay Band-IV Scale to the petitioners, respondent No.2 raised objections on 22.03.2018 that post facto approval was not obtained for granting such a pay scale and called upon them to withdraw the said pay scale and to grant such pay scale only after approval. Respondent No.3 thus issued an endorsement to petitioner Nos.1 to 8 on 29.06.2018 stating that Pay Band - IV Scale would be stopped from July 2018 and further stated that he has recommended the case of petitioner Nos.1 to 8 for grant of the said Pay Scale to respondent No.2 with approval of the Management Committee on 29.05.2018 and 13.06.2018 and

¶42

that after getting such an approval, it would be restored. In so far as petitioner Nos.9 and 10 are concerned, respondent No.4

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶44

had issued a letter on 28.06.2018 to the above effect. Later, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.3 on 12.09.2018 regarding granting of the Pay Band - IV Scale and stated that on 04.01.2016 as per the guidelines of AICTE regarding granting such a pay scale under Career Advancement Scheme, API score of each lecturer should be taken into consideration. In that regard, he had written to respondent No.1 seeking clarification and stated that the cases of the petitioners would be considered after obtaining clarification.

¶45

(ii) The petitioners contend that on going through the extension of revised AICTE pay scale from 01.04.2011 to the Teachers of Government and Aided Polytechnic under the control of the department of Higher Education in the State issued by respondent No.1, it was clear that the petitioners were entitled for Pay Band - IV with AGP of Rs.8,000/- and if they completed three years of teaching, they are eligible for Pay Band - IV of Rs.37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs.9,000/-. In so far as petitioner Nos.9 and 10 are concerned, respondent No.4 had addressed a letter to respondent No.2 on 26.06.2018 and 15.06.2017 for post facto approval to grant such a pay scale. The petitioners contend that they have prepared a

¶46

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶47

statement showing the salary they had drawn under Pay Band - IV Scale and the effect after stopping the same and also mentioned the arrears to be paid from July, 2018 upto April, 2020.

¶48

(iii) The petitioners being aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in stopping the Pay Band - IV Scale from 01.07.2018 and in not restoring Pay Band - IV scale to them, had filed W.P.No.8484/2020. The said writ petition was allowed and the order dated 22.03.2018 was quashed and respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein were directed to re-consider the cases of the petitioners for grant of Pay Band - IV Scale of Rs.37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs.9,000/- after assessment of the entitlement of the petitioners with effect from a retrospective date as claimed and not from 07.11.2015 as is indicated by respondents/State. It was also directed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 while doing so shall bear in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶49

(iv) The petitioners contend that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not comply with the aforesaid directions, which compelled them to initiate contempt proceedings in

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶51

C.C.C.No.645/2022. During the course of the contempt proceedings, the respondent No.2 issued an Office Order dated 23.09.2022 contending that the petitioners' eligibility to claim Pay Band - IV Scale in 6^th AICTE pay scale would come into effect after 07.11.2015 which requires Academic Performance Indicator (API) Scores and that the petitioners had not produced documents, which were mandatory for granting Pay Band - IV Scale i.e., AGP of Rs.9,000/- after 07.11.2015. Therefore, it was held that the claim of the petitioners for Pay Band - IV Scale cannot be considered retrospectively.

¶52

(v) The petitioners contend that the contempt petition was disposed off in the light of the Office Order, stated above, following which, the petitioners through respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted a representation dated 07.02.2025 to the Commissioner, Department of Collegiate and Technical Education enclosing therewith PBAS formats along with relevant copies of documents to the Department of Technical Education as per AICTE 6^th Pay Regulations, 2012. The petitioners therefore, contend that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are bound to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of Pay Band - IV Scale with AGP of Rs.9,000/-.

¶53

9 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that in view of the subsequent facts namely, production of the documents which establish the entitlement of the petitioners for Pay Band - IV Scale, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are bound to consider the representation of the petitioners.

¶56

The petition is opposed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who have filed detailed statement of objections, perusal of which is unnecessary as the petitioners now claim that they have produced all the documents required for the purpose of considering their claim for grant of Pay Band - IV Scale with AGP of Rs.9,000/-.

¶57

Since respondent No.2 has issued an Office Order dated 23.09.2022 stating that the petitioners have not produced API Scores under the Career Advancement Scheme for grant of Pay Band - IV Scale and since the petitioners now contend that they have produced all the documents required for the aforesaid purpose, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off.

¶58

10 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:17050 WP No. 21420 of 2023

¶60

This writ petition is disposed off by directing

¶61

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to re-consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the Order dated 06.12.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8484/2020 c/w W.P.No.3823/2021. This shall be complied within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. It is needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶62

In view of disposal of the writ petition,

¶63

I.A.No.1/2025 for production of documents stands disposed off.

¶64

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶65

PMR

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri. Satish B. K. v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Satish B. K. v. the Government 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

Shobha C Vs Union of India

Sri Ganapathi Vs State of Karnataka

T G Chandrashekarappa Vs Kuvempu University

Sri M P Lokesha Vs Chief Secretary

Kmf and District Milk Unions Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Varghese Daniel Geevarghese Vs Union of India