IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 R BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 34969 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
B JAYADEVAPPA, S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF HISTORY & PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY SRI MAD RAMBHAPURI FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, SHANKARAGHATTA-577 451 BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. K SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K R BHAVANI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION) M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY BY ITS REGISTAR, 'JNAN SAHYADRI', SHANKARAGHATTA-577 451, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M V RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1(MA NOT FILED);
SRI. T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 15.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE-T) HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND ARBITRARY ONE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is against the denial of the respondent-University to reckon the service rendered by him till after attaining the age of 62 years which according to him is the age of superannuation, asserrtedly the respondent-College being a constituent college of the said University.
2. After service of notice, the respondent- University having entered appearance through its Sr. Panel Counsel, has filed a Statement of Objections dated 13.12.2019 resisting the writ petition on the ground that the college concerned is a not constituent college of the University and therefore, the age of petitioner’s retirement being 60 years, the action of the respondent-University in not counting his services rendered beyond 60 years cannot be counted for the grant of terminal benefits.
3. The question that arises for consideration in this case is:
“Whether the subject College in which the petitioner has put in service upto 62 years is a constituent college of the respondent-University?”
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that the answer to the above question needs to be in the affirmative for the following reasons:
(a) neither the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 nor the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 has defined the term “constituent college of the University” and therefore, its meaning in common parlance needs to be ascertained; ordinarily, a constituent college of the University means such college which belongs to the University and which is directly administered by the University as contradistinguished from an “affiliated college”;
(b) the subject college in which the petitioner has put in the service till attaining the age of 62 years is treated by the UGC as a constituent college of the respondent- University, vide UGC letter dated 20.07.2010 at Annexure- K; petitioner’s assertion that the University has received grants on the basis of the subject college being treated as such under Section 12(B) of the UGC Act cannot be disbelieved;
(c) the subject college which was earlier an aided institution came to be entrusted to the Management of the respondent – University vide Government Order dated 12.02.2008 at Annexure-C wherein condition No.6 reads as under:
“6. ¸ÀzÀj PÁ¯ÉÃf£À°è ºÁ° PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÀ ªÀivÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÉÃvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ¸ÉêÁ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄwÛvÀgÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À/ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀĪÉA¥ÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.”
(d) accordingly, the University vide Notification dated 30.05.2008 at Annexure-E has prescribed the conditions of service for the employees of this College as are applicable to the employees of the University; clause 6 in the Notification reads as under:
“6. ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉêÁ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀĪÀÅ C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥Àj¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”
thus, it is the University which has been administering the subject college as if it happens to be its constituent college; that being the position, an argument to the contrary cannot be countenanced without straining the official records; and, (e) the impugned action of the respondent – University is violative of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the employees of the University have 62 years as the age of their superannuation, whereas, the employees of the subject college will be made to retire at the age of 60 years, even when the service conditions applicable to the former proprio vigor are applicable to the latter, as mentioned above; thus, the employees of the University and the employees of the subject college constitute one homogenous clause so far as service conditions are concerned and therefore, need to be treated alike;
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned Official Memorandum is quashed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-University to reckon petitioner’s services rendered in the subject College till he attained the age of 62 years for the purpose of settlement of all his terminal benefits including the pension, within a period of two months.
If the compliance of this direction is delayed, the respondent-University shall pay to the petitioner, a cost of Rs.10,000/- for each month of delay, which may be recovered from its erring officials concerned, in accordance with law.
No costs, as of now.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv