M/S. Adarsha Film and T.V. Institute Vs the Principal Secretary

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. ADARSH FILM AND T.V. INSTITUTE (EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, AIDED AND APPROVED BY THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA) REGISTERED OFFICE: NO.6/1, 1^ST FLOOR, 16^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, NEAR T.CHOWDAIAH MEMORIAL HALL BENGALURU-560 003.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. G RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶33

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM R-3 VIDE LETTER DATED 09.07.2015 THE ORIGINAL OF

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶35

3 -

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

WHICH IS AT ANNEX-J SICNE THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL; DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND SERVICE BENEFITS SUCH AS, PENSION, LEAVE ENCASHMENT BENEFITS ETC., AND WITH FURTHER DIRECTIONS TO PAY THE ARREARS OF PENSION TO THE PETITIONER AND CONTINUE TO PAY THE SAME EVERY MONTH ALONG WITH INTEREST ON THE DELAYED PAYMENT.

¶38

IN WP NO. 24416/2024

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

M/S. ADARSHA FILM AND T.V. INSTITUTE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI PRADEEP KUMAR B M S/O SRI MALLIKARJUNAPPA B R AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.19-A 3RD FLOOR, VINAYAKANAGAR RAMANATH LAYOUT NEAR CHITRAKOOTA SCHOOL NAGADEVANAHALLI BANGALORE-560056 REGISTERED UNDER THE MYSORE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960 (MYSORE ACT NO.17 OF 1950)

¶41

...PETITIONER

¶42

(BY SRI. LAXMINARAYANA., ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND:

¶44

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS VIKASA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NO.17, VARTHA SOUDHA BHAGAWAN MAHAVEER JAIN ROAD (INFANTRY ROAD) BANGALORE-560001

¶49

...RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 06.08.2024 IN BEARING NO. VASASAME/E8/202425/5077-78 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-R AS ILLEGAL. DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE GRANTS DUE TO THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION.

¶52

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

¶53

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶54

ORAL ORDER

¶55

In W.P.No.5752/2016, the petitioner filed this petition

¶56

seeking the following prayer:

¶57

a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or direction quashing the communication received by the petitioner from 3^rd respondent vide letter dated 09.07.2015 the original of which

¶58

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

is marked as Annexure-J since the same is arbitrary and illegal;

¶61

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or direction directing the respondents to extend service benefits such as, pension, leave encashment benefits etc., and with further directions to pay the arrears of pension to the petitioner and continue to pay the same every month along with interest on the delayed payment.

¶62

c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as deemed necessary to meet the ends of justice.

¶63

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶64

The petitioner was appointed as Attender in the third respondent institute with effect from 01.05.1975 vide appointment order dated 04.06.1975. The appointment of the petitioner was made permanent as per the Government Order dated 01.04.1978. The Government issued an order dated 23.06.1978 by which the third respondent institute came to be governed under the grant-in-aid to the private film institutions. The third respondent issued office order

¶65

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

dated 25.09.1978, by which the employees working in the institute including the petitioner herein came to be governed under the grant-in-aid.

¶68

A similarly placed person by one Sri. M.R.Shankar as that of petitioner approached this court in W.P.No.34512 of 1999 and the said writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 09.10.2002. The respondent aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, preferred a writ appeal in WA No. 134 of 2003. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2005. The State has preferred a SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said SLP came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 11.04.2008. The third respondent issued office order to the retiring petitioner from services of the institution with effect from afternoon of 30.04.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner approached the third respondent on 19.06.2015 to extend the retirement benefits including pension and also his oral

¶69

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

request was not considered by the respondents. The petitioner then submitted a representation. The third respondent issued an endorsement dated 09.07.2015 stating that the petitioner is not entitled for retirement benefits. The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned endorsement filed this writ petition.

¶72

Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a statement of objections admitting that the petitioner was employed by the third respondent and contended that the petitioner is not entitled for retirement benefits as there is no rules prescribed and it is also contended that in the Government Order

¶73

No.KASAMVAPRA/4PIF/2-10 dated 17.08.2010, the words Karnataka Financial Code and Karnataka Civil Service Rules mentioned in Rule (6) of grant-in-aid code approved for the film institute has been removed and the third respondent employees are excluded from the provisions and rules mentioned in KFC and KCSR. Hence, respondents No. 1 and 2 have rightly issued

¶74

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

an endorsement. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition against the respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶77

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶78

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similarly placed employees approached this court in the case of M.R.Shankar vs. state of Karnataka in WP No.34512 of 1999 and the said writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 09.10.2002 and the said order passed in the writ petition was confirmed by the Supreme Court. He submits that the petitioner stands on the same footing and the petitioner is entitled for similar relief on ground of parity. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition in terms of the order passed in WP No. 34512 of 1999.

¶79

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Government has issued a Government order

¶80

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

No.KASAMVAPRA/ 4PIF/2-10 to delete the Karnataka Financial Code and KCSR in Rule (6), grant-in-aid code has been removed. Hence, the respondent No. 3 doesn't fall and the petitioner is not entitled for grantin-aid. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for retirement benefits and respondents No. 1 and 2 have rightly issued an endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶83

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the leaned counsel for the parties.

¶84

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working in the third respondent institution which was governed by grant-in-aid. The Government orders are applicable to the aided private educational institutions. The third respondent is an aided private Educational institution that cannot be denied in view of the findings recorded by this court in WP No. 34512 of 1999.

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Further, the Co-ordinate Bench had an occasion to consider Rule (6) and after considering Rule (6), it has held that the rules are supplementary to the general rules of expenditure and disbursement of grant-in-aid under the Karnataka Financial Code and other financial manuals. Therefore, the provisions prescribed under the separate Rules applicable to the third respondent alone shall not be taken into consideration when determining the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶89

Further, the Co-ordinate bench held that the letter of portion of rule extracted makes it clear that if the provisions of the rules separately framed by the third respondent are inconsistent with the provisions of the Karnataka Financial Code (for short ‘KFC’) and Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short ‘KCSR’), the provisions of latter shall prevail. That means the provisions of Rules framed by the third respondent shall not be in consistent with KFC and KCSR. In other

¶90

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

words, if the KCSR rules are applicable to the employees who have been working in the third respondent’s educational institution, if that be so, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed.

¶93

The order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged in the writ appeal in WA No.134 of 2003. The Division Bench vide judgment dated 07.01.2005 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned single judge. The State has challenged the order passed in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court in a special leave petition and the SLP came to be dismissed.

¶94

As the similarly placed employee to the respondents No.1 and 2 have already extended the retirement benefits to the similarly placed petitioners, the petitioner is also entitled for similar benefit on the ground of parity. I concur with the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of M.R.Shankar vs. state of Karnataka (referred supra) in

¶95

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

W.P.No.34512 of 1999 and the impugned

¶98

communication is liable to be quashed.

¶99

In W.P.No.24416/2024, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order No.�ಾಸಸಂ ಇ/ ಇ8/202425/5077-78 dated 06.08.2024 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-R.

¶100

The petitioner institution was formed by way of Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulation on 28.04.1973. The certificate of registration was issued by the Registrar of Societies on 08.05.1973. The said institution was developed with an intention, that the Government of Karnataka granted 10 acres of land on lease basis for a period of 30 years with the condition that the lease shall be renewable for a period not later than the year 2017. The said deed was registered. The registered deed was executed by the Karnataka Film Industry Development Corporation Ltd. in favour of the petitioner's institution on 16.11.1984. The said institution came in grant-in-aid for construction of a

¶101

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

building. The date of endorsement issued by the registrar of Co-operative societies was on 15.11.2000. Since from 2012, the respondents have not paid any grants to the petitioner's institution. The petitioner's institution made several requests to the respondents

¶104

to pay the grant-in-aid to the petitioner's institution which they are entitled. The petitioner taking note of inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation for payment of grant-in-aid approached this court in WP No. 23562 of 2023 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation. This court vide order dated 23.11.2023 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶105

Pursuant to the direction issued by this court, the respondent has issued an endorsement. The

¶106

respondents have cancelled the grant-in-aid. The cancellation order is in violation of principles of natural

¶107

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

justice. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶110

Despite granting sufficient opportunity, the respondent State has not filed a statement of objections.

¶111

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶112

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner institution was under grant-in-aid. The respondents, without issuing any notice and holding any enquiry, has passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice. To buttress his argument, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi

¶113

vs. Union of India¹ . Hence, he submits that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural

¶114

1 1978 AIR 597

¶115

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

justice. Hence on these grounds, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶118

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate fairly concede that before passing an impugned order no inquiry was held. He submits that liberty be reserved to the respondents to initiate a fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶119

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶120

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner institution was established in 1973 and the institution was established only with an intention to develop and impart education to the artists. An agreement came to be executed between the Karnataka Film Industry Development Corporation Ltd in favour of a petitioner institution. Subsequently, the petitioner institution started imparting education to the students and the

¶121

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

said institution came under grant-in-aid. Since 2012, the respondent did not pay any grant-in-aid to the petitioner's institution. The petitioner made several requests to the respondents to release grants in favour of the petitioner's institution.

¶124

Despite the request made by the petitioner, the respondents did not give any heed to the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner approached this court in WP No. 23562 of 2023 seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation and release the grant. The said petition

¶125

came to be disposed of by the order dated 23.11.2023. Pursuant to the order passed by this court in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents have issued an impugned endorsement stating that they are cancelling the grant-in-aid as per Rule 11, of the Karnataka Technical Educational Institutions (Grant-inaid for Private Industrial Training Institutes) Rules, 2023 which reads as follows:

¶126

17 -

¶127

NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

11. Withdrawal of the grants:

¶130

(3) In case of gross mis-management, deterioration of standards of efficiency, infrastructures prescribed by DGT and discipline or breach of instructions or order issued by the Competent authority or infringement of provisions of conditions, rules and procedures laid down in these rules, which in the opinion of the Competent Authority is of a serious nature, the grant may be withdrawn by the Competent Authority after giving such an institution an opportunity of being heard.

¶131

Admittedly, in the instant case Rule 11 (3) has not been followed. Thus the impugned order passed by the Respondent is in violation of Rule 11 of the above said Rules 2023. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶132

18 -

¶133

NC: 2026:KHC:28362 WP No. 5752 of 2016 C/W WP No. 24416 of 2024

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the

¶136

following order:

¶137

ORDER

¶138

i. The writ petitions are allowed .

¶139

ii. In W.P.No.5752/2016, Annexure-J dated 09.07.2015 is hereby quashed.

¶140

iii. In W.P.No.5752/2016, the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner shall submit an application within two weeks before the controlling authority and respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for release of retirement benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶141