IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.3666-3678/2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN 1. DR. MAHESHA S/O SHANAKARANAYAK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, # 4089, 15TH CROSS ANJANEYA LAYOUT, DAVANGERE-577 004 2. DR. E S PRAKASH S/O E SHARANAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PROFESSOR OF MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, # “SHARANA”
I MAIN, S S LAYOUT, ‘B’ BLOCK DAVANGERE-577 004 3. MR. C M RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE MARAJJA C AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF CIVIL DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, # 2749/440 “CHANDRADARSHAN”, 1ST FLOOR 2ND ‘E’ CROSS, 3RD MAIN, S S LAYOUT ‘B’ BLOCK, DAVANGERE-577 004 4. DR. LOKESHAPPA B S/O LATE BASAPPA NAGARKOND AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CIVIL DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004 # 1140, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS TARALABALU BADAVANE DAVANGERE-577 005 5. DR. R P SWAMY S/O R PARAMESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CIVIL DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, # 1804/7 VIDYA NAGAR, DAVANGERE-577 005 6. DR. KISHAN NAIK S/O BHIKKUSINGH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, # 3992/114, 16TH CROSS ANJANEYA LAYOUT, DAVANGERE-577 004 7. MRS. KAVITHA G W/O C T JAGANNATHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF CS&E DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, # 1881, 1ST CROSS S S LAYOUT, ‘A’ BLOCK, DAVANGERE-577 004 8. MR. NAVEEN KUMAR B S/O B R DEVASATHNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF CS&E DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, # 3709/7 BEHIND APTHAGIRI HOTEL BASAVESWARA BADAVANI, KUNDHWAD ROAD DAVANGERE-577 006 9. MR. KUMARA GANAPATHI ADI S/O LATE G P SUBBADI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF E&I DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, #1928/8 SHREYA-SAVITHRI, 10TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS ‘A’ BLOCK, S S LAYOUT ATHANI COLLEGE ROAD DAVANGERE-577 004 10. MR. SREEDHARAMURTHY S K S/O LATE KANTHAIAH H AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECE DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, #1659/910 BEHIND ST. JOHN PRIMARY SCHOOL TARABALU BADAVANE DAVANGERE-577 004 11. MR. LAKSHMAN NAIKA R S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECE DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004 # 1727/153, SARASWATI NAGARA ‘C’ BLOCK DAVANGERE-577 004 12. MR. MANJA NAIK N S/O NAGA NAIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECE DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, # 568/36 MANJUNATHA NILAYA SARASWATI NAGARA ‘B’ BLOCK NITTUVALLI, DAVANGERE-577 004 13. MR. RAVINDRA P RAJPUT S/O LATE PUNNU SINGH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECE DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY BDT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DAVANGERE-577 004, # 566/1, 2ND CROSS NITTUVALLI NEW EXTENSION DAVANGERE-577 004 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI A D RAMANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION), M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE REGISTRAR KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY JNANASAHYADRI, SHANKARAGATTA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 451 STATE OF KARNATAKA 4. THE FINANCE OFFICER KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY JNANASAHYADRI, SHANKARAGATTA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 451 STATE OF KARNATAKA 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (A & E) PARK HOUSE, BANGALORE-560 001 6. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R-1, 2 & 5) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 IN W.P.NOS.24258- 24270/2019 (S-RES) AND ALLOW W.P.NOS.24258-24270/2019 (S-RES) AS PRAYED.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. The present appellants are the writ petitioners who filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the orders passed in W.P.Nos.42928-42997/2015 dated 9th October 2015 to pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments as per the revised pay scales and the balance of arrears amount with interest payable to them as set out in Annexure-B in terms of the said judgment and order dated 9th October 2015. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the petitions on the ground that before approaching the writ Court by seeking a writ of mandamus, the appellants did not make a demand against the concerned respondents. The learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of MANI SUBRAT JAIN & OTHERS vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS1.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that a right is created in favour of the appellants by virtue of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9th October 2015 on the basis of which, a part payment of the amount was made by the respondents. He submitted that as a right is created by virtue of the said judgment, it was not necessary for the appellants to make a representation demanding justice. He relied upon the direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court dated 28th November 2018 in CCC No.429/2018 and connected cases by which, in case of similarly placed persons, a separate writ petition was permitted to be filed.
4. We have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the appellants have not made a representation making a grievance that in terms of the judgment and order dated 9th October 2015, requisite amount has not been paid. The law on 1 (1977) 1 SCC 486 this aspect has been laid down in the case of SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. AND OTHERS vs UNION OF
INDIA2. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said decision read thus:
“24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edn.), vol. 13, p. 106) :
As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.
25. In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. These appeals must be and are, hereby, 2 (1974) 2 SCC 630 dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.”
(underlines supplied) 5. Therefore, by not entertaining the writ petitions filed by the appellants and by refusing to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error.
6. However, the appellants are working as Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education Personnel and therefore, instead of driving them to file a separate representation, the writ petitions filed by them can be treated as a representation.
7. Though we are unable to find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge, we direct that the respondents shall treat the writ petitions filed by the appellants which are subject matter of these appeals as a representation made by them. The concerned respondents will examine whether the appellants are entitled to benefits in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9th October 2015 with reference to the details given in Annexure-B to the writ petitions.
8. Needless to add that if the respondents find that the appellants are entitled to the benefits as per the judgment and order dated 9th October 2015, the same shall be immediately released to them after deciding the representations.
9. By treating the writ petitions filed by the appellants as a representation, the same shall be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of one month from the date on which a copy of this order is served on the concerned respondents.
10. Subject to the above directions, the appeals are dismissed.
The pending interlocutory application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv