IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA Writ Petition No. 36634 OF 2015 (S-RES) Between:
C. Chandrasekaran S/o Changalaraya Goundar, Aged about 62 years, R/at #117/A, Opp. Ganesha Temple, P & T Colony, Venkateshapuram, Bengaluru – 560 045.
(By Sri. P.H. Virupakshaiah, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Education Department (Higher Secondary Education), M.S. Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
... Petitioner 2. The Commissioner of Public Instructions, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Director (Secondary) Department of Public Instructions, K.G. Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.
4. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions Bengaluru North, K.G. Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.
5. The Block Education Officer (BEO) North Range III, Kamaraj Road, Bengaluru – 560 042.
6. The Secretary.
Dr. Ambedkar Mission Education Society, No.1/A, M.D.M. Road, Frazer Town, Bengaluru – 560 005.
7. The Head Master, Dr. Ambedkar High School, Devarajeevanahalli, Bengaluru – 560 045. … Respondents (By Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, HCGP for R1 to R5, Notice to R6 and R7 are D/w vide order dt 3.10.17) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent authorities more particularly the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 authorities to take action and to pass appropriate orders on recommendations vide Annexure – D dated 28.12.2012 and Annexure – E dated 05.02.2013 and etc.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner who is Assistant Master is before this Court for writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities more particularly respondents No.3, 4 and 5 to take action and to pass appropriate orders on the recommendations made by the respondents 3, 4 and 5 as per Annexure – D dated 28.12.2012 and Annexure – E dated 05.02.2013 and disburse the arrears of salary consequent upon the grant of higher pay scale from 26.06.2005 to 27.06.2010 along with interest on arrears of the salary at 18% p.a.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Master by the respondent authorities in 7th respondent High School and reported for duty on 01.07.1978. Since the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the Government he continued the work on a meager salary. The candidature of the petitioner was processed for approval under the provisions of Karnataka Education Act and also under the Government-in-aid Code.
3. The petitioner is having all the required qualification, eligibility for appointment as Assistant Master in 7th Respondent High School. The order of approval was accorded by the 4th respondent authority on 23.02.1981. The petitioner’s appointment was approved in the pay scale of 500 -1120 from 28.06.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Master from 28.06.1980 till 30.09.2013 on which date the petitioner retired from Government Service on superannuation. The Government of Karnataka introduced the scheme for grant of higher pay scale in respect of teachers and employees who continued the work in the same pay scale and cadre without promotion for about 25 years to 30 years. According to the petitioner, he served in the capacity as Assistant Master in 7th Respondent High School for over 33 years without any promotion. Therefore, he is eligible to get benefit under the scheme formulated by the Government. The respondents No.4 and 5 by a recommendation dated 28.12.2012 and 05.02.2013 recommended the name of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale. Inspite of said recommendations made, respondents No.2 and 3 have not considered or passed any orders therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri. P.H. Virupakshaiah learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has contended that the petitioner has worked in 7th respondent High School for more than 33 years and that he is entitled for grant of higher pay scale as per the scheme formulated by the Government. Inspite of the recommendations made by respondents No.4 and 5 as per Annexures – D and E dated 28.12.2012 and 05.02.2013, till today, respondents No.2 and 3 have not passed any orders. He further contended that it is the obligation on the part of respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the recommendation made by the respondents No.4 and 5 and pass appropriate orders. He further contended that inspite of recommendations made in the year 2012 and 2013, till today respondents No.2 and 3 have not considered or passed any orders. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition for grant of writ of mandamus.
6. Per contra, Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi learned HCGP on instructions submitted that the recommendations made by the respondents No.4 and 5 as per Annexures -D and E will be considered by respondents No.2 and 3 and pass orders in accordance with law. The said submission is placed on record.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in 7th respondent High School as Assistant Master in the year 1978 i.e. on 01.07.1978 and the appointment was approved in the pay scale of 500 to 1120 from 28.06.1980. It is also not in dispute that Government of Karnataka has introduced the scheme for grant of higher pay scale in respect of teachers and employees who have worked for more than 25 to 30 years without any promotion. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner worked in 7th respondent High School for more than 33 years on the basis of the service rendered by the petitioner. The respondents No.4 and 5 recommended the name of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale in terms of the scheme formulated by the Government as long as 28.12.2012 and 05.02.2013 to the respondents No.2 and 3. Inspite of the same, the respondents No.2 and 3 have not considered the recommendations nor passed any orders. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case to issue the writ of mandamus as prayed for.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed, writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the recommendations made by the respondents No.4 and 5 dated 28.12.2012 and 05.02.2013 as per Annexures ‘D’ and ‘E’ and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE UN