University of Mysore Vs D. v. Gopalappa

SON OF VENKATANARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RETIRED PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS R/AT NO.269, LAKSHMINRUKESARI 4^TH MAIN, BANK COLONY BOGADI MAIN ROAD CIRCLE, MYSURU-570 026.

¶17

2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT

¶18

2

¶19

MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHRIDHUAR PRABHU, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. S.A.AHMED, AAG WITH SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.9038/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

¶23

IN CCC NO.1063/2024:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

D. V. GOPALAPPA SON OF VENKATANARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCCUPATION: RETIRED PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS R/AT NO.269 LAKSHMINRUKESARI 4^TH MAIN, BANK COLONY BOGADI RING ROAD CIRCLE MYSURU-570 026

¶26

...COMPLAINANT

¶27

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV.,)

¶28

AND:

¶29

1 . V. R. SHYLAJA PRESENTLY WORKING AS REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE UNIVESITY ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK CROWFORD HALL

¶30

3

¶31

MYSURU-570005

¶32

2 . SRIKAR M S (IAS) PRESENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION KARNATAKA SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 2^ND GATE, 6^TH FLOOR M.S. BUILDNG BENGALURU-560 001. 3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 2^ND GATE, 6^TH FLOOR M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶33

...ACCUSED

¶34

...PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶35

(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADV. FOR A1; SRI. S.A.AHMED, AAG WITH SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR A2 AND PROFORMA R3)

¶36

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 R/W. SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INSTITUTE AN ENQUIRY AND INITIATE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR THEIR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS DATED 18.06.2024 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.9038/2024, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶37

4

¶38

IN WA NO.334/2025:

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶41

...APPELLANT

¶42

(BY SRI. S.A.AHMED, AAG WITH SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA)

¶43

AND:

¶44

1 . SRI. D V GOPALAPPA S/O. VENKATANARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, R/AT. NO.269, LAKSHMINRUKESARI, 4^TH MAIN, BANK COLONY, BOGADI RING ROAD CIRCLE, MYSORE-570 026.

¶45

2 . UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE, UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, CROWFORD HALL, MYSORE-570 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV., FOR R1; SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADV. FOR R2)

¶48

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.06.2024 IN W.P.NO.9038/2024.

¶49

5

¶50

THESE WRIT APPEALS AND CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶52

CAV JUDGMENT

¶53

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶54

Writ Appeals No.332/2025 and 334/2025 are filed by the University of Mysore and the State, respectively, as against the Order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9038/2024 (S-RES). The Contempt of Court case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the same order.

¶55

We have heard Shri. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Abhishek. K, learned Advocate appearing for the University of Mysore, Shri. S.A. Ahmed, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Shweta Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Shri. Shridhar Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.

¶56

6

¶57

Respondent No.1 herein had filed the writ petition challenging the endorsement dated 22.01.2024 issued by the University of Mysore, which was produced as Annexure - A. By the said endorsement, the University of Mysore had held that respondent No.1's appointment as 'Reader in Economics' on 12.07.2007, by direct recruitment was a fresh appointment and that his earlier service rendered as Reader on contract basis from 30.07.2004, could not be counted as qualifying service. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions advanced and found that respondent No.1 was initially appointed on a contractual basis on 30.07.2004 up to 31.03.2007, which was to be co-terminus with the UGC X Plan. Thereafter, he was appointed as Reader in the year 2007 by Direct Recruitment. The learned Single Judge found that the services of all other persons who had been appointed on temporary basis in terms of UGC X Plan had been continued, their appointments regularised and they were held eligible for inclusion in the Old Pension Scheme, taking note of their initial appointment in the year 2004. In respondent No.1's case, he had also continued in service,

¶58

7

¶59

after 31.03.2007 as well, but had participated in a selection for Direct Recruitment to the post of Reader and had succeeded. The Syndicate had constituted a sub-committee and the report of the sub-committee was placed before it. The Syndicate considering the findings of the sub-committee and after detailed deliberations held that respondent No.1 was eligible to be included in the Old Pension Scheme.

¶60

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University of Mysore would also contend that respondent No.1 was a person who had been appointed specifically on a contract basis for the duration of the UGC X Plan. It is specifically stated in the appointment order that the post is sanctioned only for the UGC X Plan period terminating on 31.03.2007. It is stated that while he was working on contractual basis, Annexure - D Notification dated 19.04.2007 was issued for regular appointment and respondent No.1 applied pursuant to the Notification and was appointed on a regular basis by Annexure - E Order dated 12.07.2007. It is submitted that the said Order clearly shows that it is a fresh appointment and prescribes a

¶61

8

¶62

probation for a period of two years. It is further submitted that he was admitted to the Contributory Pension Scheme and he had also contributed from his salary to the said Scheme. It is therefore contended that the Order impugned in the writ petition passed by the University of Mysore, was

¶63

perfectly legal and valid and that since he was appointed directly after introduction of the New Pension Scheme, he could not claim any entitlement for benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.

¶64

The learned Additional Advocate General

¶65

appearing for the State submits that the powers of the Syndicate are clearly defined under Section 29 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 ('KSU Act' for short). It is contended that the power of the Syndicate is to frame statutes and the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme had been extended to other seven employees appointed temporarily under the UGC X Plan Scheme and later regularised in service of the University, only after framing of the statutes as provided in the KSU Act. It is contended that in respondent No.1's case, there was no statute framed

¶66

9

¶67

and as such, the Syndicate did not have the power to pass an order to the effect that respondent No.1, who is not a beneficiary of the statute, should be granted the benefit of inclusion in the Old Pension Scheme.

¶68

We have considered the contentions advanced. It

¶69

is an admitted fact that the petitioner/respondent No.1 was appointed on a contractual basis pursuant to Annexure - B Notification dated 20.02.2001. It was after a due recruitment process that appointment Order dated 30.07.2004 was issued to him. It is true that the post was sanctioned only for the UGC X Plan period. However, it is an

¶70

admitted fact that the persons appointed pursuant to Annexure - B Notification, continued in service on the basis of extension of UGC X Plan. While so, Annexure - D Notification was issued on 19.04.2007 inviting applications from persons having due qualifications and five years experience in teaching or research for regular appointment. The writ petitioner applied and was appointed by Annexure - E Order dated 12.07.2007. True, the said appointment was not a regularisation of service. However, it is clear that, but

¶71

10

¶72

for the said regular appointment, the writ petitioner would have continued on a contractual basis and his service regularized as has been done in all other cases of similarly situated persons. All persons who had been appointed for the UGC X Plan were later regularised in service and were also granted the benefit of inclusion in the Old Pension Scheme on the basis of competent orders of the Syndicate. These proceedings have become final and there is no challenge or recall of the said benefits granted. The only difference in the writ petitioner's case was that, he had undergone a further selection process and had been appointed regularly as Reader in the University of Mysore by Annexure - E Order dated 12.07.2007. There is also no dispute that the writ petitioner was also fully qualified for appointment and that there was no break in his service. Further, the University had acted upon the decision of the Syndicate and had refunded the entire amount collected as contribution from the petitioner's salary towards the New Contributory Pension Scheme with interest.

¶73

11

¶74

Having considered the contentions advanced and the facts on record as well as the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the question whether the Syndicate had the power to direct the benefits to be granted to the writ petitioner, dehors the framing of statutes is not a question which requires to be considered in these writ appeals. The said question is expressly left open.

¶75

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner was also appointed along with seven persons who had been granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme by the Syndicate and on the basis of the factual findings of the Syndicate as contained in the Order dated 12.07.2007, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner would also be entitled to the benefit of inclusion in the Old Pension Scheme. We are not persuaded to differ from the findings of the learned Single Judge.

¶76

In the result:-

¶77

(i) Both the appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.

¶78

12

¶79

(ii) The appellants are granted two months time to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

¶80

(iii) The amounts already deposited by the University of Mysore before this Court shall be reckoned towards the amounts due to respondent No.1 herein and in case any amounts are found to be in excess, the same shall be released to the University.

¶81