Himalakshi P K Vs State of Karnataka

HIMALAKSHI P K W/O SHRI AB KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RETIRED PRINCIPAL V V PURAM COLLEGE OF LAW KR ROAD, BENGALURU-560004 PRESENTLY R/O PADAKALLU VILLAGE CHETTIMANI POST, KODAGU DISTRICT KARNATAKA-571247 …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K SREEDHAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A LAW, JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT Location: HIGH VIDHANA SOUDHA COURTOF BENGALURU-560001. KARNATAKA

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION MS BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34706 WP No. 35586 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE DIRECTOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶19

THE VOKKALIGARA SANGHA PRIVATE EDUCATION INSTITUTE V V PURAM, KR ROAD BENGALURU-560004 REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R4: R5 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. LAW 50 KLM 2013 BENGALURU DATED: 26.08.2015 AT ANNEXURE-K AND PRESENT ORDER OF THE R-3 BEARING NO. DCE/160/WRAP /2023-24/BENDIV/APP-2 DATED: 25.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXUREM AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 25.06.2024 vide Annexure-M, passed by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner’s request for admitting to grant-in-aid was rejected.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34706 WP No. 35586 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was having qualification of B.Com., LL.M and M.Phil in Law. She was appointed as a lecturer in Vivekananda College of Law, Bengaluru on 25.08.1984. Thereafter, on 13.08.1998, she was relieved from Vivekananda College and she was reported as a reader in V.V.Puram Law College on 14.08.1998. Thereafter, she was promoted as a Principal on 21.01.2000. On 28.11.2012 (Annexure-G), the Government has issued an order stating that various law colleges were granted benefit of grant-in-aid with effect from 01.01.2013. For that purpose, a Committee was constituted to examine the eligibility of each college and to recommend for grant-in-aid. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Committee, the employees of the V.V.Puram Law College have been admitted to grant-in-aid from 26.08.2015. By that time, the petitioner was retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2014.

¶28

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34706 WP No. 35586 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Since the petitioner’s name has not been included

¶31

in the order dated 26.08.2015, she has approached this Court by filing a writ petition in WP No.58817/2016. This Court, by on 18.03.2024 passed the following order:

¶32

“(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

¶33

(ii) The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are hereby directed to treat this writ petition as a representation and consider the petitioner’s claim by taking cognizance of the notification dated 28.11.2012 as per Annexure-D, more particularly, clause (12) of the said notification and thereafter pass appropriate orders concerning petitioner’s right to pension and gratuity;

¶34

(iii) However, the petitioner’s prayer for refixation of salary by calculating aided and non-aided service during 25.08.1984 till the age of her superannuation i.e., 28.02.2014 is rejected.”

¶35

Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the

¶36

impugned order dated 25.06.2024 vide Annexure-M, has been passed stating that, as on the date of admitting to grant-in-aid, by order dated 26.08.2015, petitioner was

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34706 WP No. 35586 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

not in the service, she had attained the age of superannuation. This issue was already decided by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No. 58817/2016 has considered the notification issued by the Government dated 28.11.2012, wherein it has specifically held as follows:

¶40

“6. Considering the time line, it is evident that at the time of petitioner’s retirement, respondent No.5-Institution was in fact admitted to grant-in-aid. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioner’s service period falls within the timeframe of the Institution’s grant-in-aid status. Given these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for grant-in-aid for the purpose of pension as the institution she had served eventually obtained grant-in-aid status while she was still in service. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioner’s service should be recognized and accounted for determining eligibility for pension benefits.

¶41

7. At the outset as stated supra, the respondent No.5-institution formerly admitted to grant-in-aid status commencing from 01.01.2013, a date predating the petitioner’s retirement on

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34706 WP No. 35586 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

28.02.2014. Furthermore, it is noted that a total of 19 educational institutions including respondent No.5-Institution where petitioner was employed were accorded grant-in-aid status on 26.08.2015.

¶45

8. Delving into crux of the matter, this Court has made a thorough analysis of temporal sequence of events. If respondent No.5 was admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 01.01.2013, the respondent No.5-Institution ultimately transition into grant-in-aid recipient and therefore, it is in this background, petitioner’s dedicated years of service were enveloped within the temporal ambit of respondent No.5-Institution’s grant-in-aid designation.

¶46

9. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 4- authorities are bound to consider petitioner’s claim for grant-in-aid for the purpose of pension bearing in mind the equitable principles and statutory interpretation. The respondents-authorities are also bound to take cognizance of the petitioner’s tenure, though commencing prior to the institution’s grantin-aid status, remains intrinsically linked to the institution’s eventual receipt of grant-in-aid. Consequently, the Court unequivocally directs the respondents-authorities to consider petitioner’s

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:34706 WP No. 35586 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

case for due recognition factoring into the calculus for pension entitlement.

¶51

10. On perusal of the notification dated 26.08.2015, the teaching and non-teaching staff of respondent No.5- Institution were admitted to grant-in-aid while petitioner’s name was excluded. However, the said notification as per Annexure-G has enumerated a remedy to those teaching and non-teaching staff who are left out from grant-inaid list reserving liberty to submit a representation within one month along with necessary documents. The authorities have clearly notified in the said notification that such claims will be reviewed according to the norms.”

¶52

Without considering this aspect of the matter, the petitioner’s request has been rejected on the ground that she has attained superannuation before passing of the order dated 26.08.2015. This reasoning given by the respondents in the impugned endorsement is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in WP No.58817/2016.

¶53

In respect of rejection of the request of the petitioner for payment of pension is concerned, in respect

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34706 WP No. 35586 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

of granting the pension during the non-grant period, the issue is pending before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2476/2015. Therefore, at present, the petitioner is not pressing for that.

¶57

Another ground issued in the endorsement that the petitioner is not qualified as on the date of issuing the grant-in-aid order on 26.08.2015 is concerned, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Vivekananda College of Law in the year 1984. Thereafter, she was appointed as a reader in VV Puram Law College. Then she was promoted as a Principal. As on the day, there was no such Rules insisting for 55% marks in LLM. She has also relied upon the communication vide Annexure-E dated 27.11.2001, which is communicated to the Vice Chancellors of all the Universities. The same is extracted below:

¶58

“In continuation to the UGC Notification dated 24.12.1998 and Regulation No.F.3-1/2000 (PS) dated 4.4.200 regarding revision of pay scale and

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:34706 WP No. 35586 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

minimum qualification of teachers, I would like to inform you that the minimum requirement of 55% marks at Master’s level shall not be insisted upon for Principals, Professors, Readers, Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Directors of Physical Education, Deputy Director of Physical Education for the existing incumbents who are already in the university system. The minimum requirement in their case shall be at least 50% of marks at Master’s level. However, 55% of marks at Master’s level should be insisted upon for those entering the system from outside and those at the entry point of Lecturers, Assistant Registrars, Assistant Librarians, Assistant Director of Physical Education.”

¶62

Without considering this aspect of the matter, the

¶63

reason has been given in the impugned endorsement that the petitioner is not qualified. Therefore, the endorsement requires to be quashed.

¶64

In view of the above, the following order is passed:

¶65

(i) The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:34706 WP No. 35586 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

(ii) The respondents are directed to reconsider the

¶69

case of the petitioner, keeping in view of the communication dated 27.11.2001 and earlier directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.58817/2016 and other relevant law, which is applicable for consideration of grantin-aid, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶70

(iii) In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶71

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶72

CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54

Himalakshi P K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himalakshi P K v. 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

Shri Rajesh D Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhakar P Vs the Chairman

Smt Bhagya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M S Pradeep Vs the State of Karnataka

Akash Kamble Vs the State of Karnataka