IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.47486 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN SMT. MUBEENA BEGUM, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD MISTRESS (NURSERY SECTION), SRI. SANGAMESHWARA URDU NURSERY & PRIMARY SCHOOL, MANGAMMANAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 068. ….PETITIONER (BY SRI NANJA REDDY.P.N, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU-560 002.
2. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, BENGALURU SOUTH-III B.T.M LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 029.
3. THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI. SANGAMESHWARA URDU NURSERY & PRIMARY SCHOOL, MANGAMMANAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 068.
REPTD., BY ITS PRESIDENT. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI AMARESH.C.V, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE AND PAY THE SALARY TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, JUNE AND JULY- 2016 AND CONTINUE TO PAY THE SALARY EVERY MONTH TILL HER RETIREMENT IE., ON 15.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING, ORDER The petitioner who is working as Head Mistress (Nursery Section) is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to release the salary to the petitioner for the month of May, June and July 2016 and continue to pay the salary every month till her retirement i.e., on 15.01.2019.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she has joined the 3rd respondent – institution as Assistant Teacher (Nursery) on 17.07.1987, which is an aided institution. The petitioner’s appointment was made by the 1st respondent and same was approved and admitted to grant-in-aid by the 2nd respondent. When things stood thus the salary of the petitioner has not been paid for the month of May, June, July 2016 for the reasons best known to the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner made several representations. Inspite of the same, the respondents have not considered the same nor passed any orders. Therefore, finally petitioner made a representation on 18.8.2016 requesting the respondents to release the salary for the month of May, June, July, 2016. The said representation is also not considered by the respondents in particular respondent No.2 nor released the salary for the month of May, June and July, 2016, which she is entitled legally. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri P.N.Nanjaredddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while re-iterating the grounds in the writ petition, has contended that without any reason, the respondents have stopped the salary from the May, June and July, 2016. Inspite of the representation made on 18.8.2016, the respondents in particular respondent No.2, has neither considered the representation nor released the salary for the month of May, June and July 2016, till today. Therefore, unnecessarily petitioner is driven before this Court by filing the writ petition and sought to allow the writ petition for a writ of mandamus as sought for.
5. Per contra, Smt.Shwetha Krishnappa, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and 2 submits that there was a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and same was entrusted to the Lokayuktha. The Lokayuktha recommenced under Section 12(3) of the Lokayuktha Act for compulsory retirement. Therefore, the respondents have stopped the salary. Hence, she sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 17.7.1987 in the 3rd respondent –institution, which was admitted to grant- in-aid and her appointment has been approved by the 1st respondent -Deputy Director of Public Instructions. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent without any reason suddenly stopped the salary for the month of May, June and July-2016. Therefore, she was forced to make a representation dated 18.8.2016. If any departmental enquiry is pending, the 2nd respondent was not prevented to pass orders on the representation made on 18.8.2016. Though the learned Government Advocate tried to defend that there is a departmental enquiry pending, admittedly no objections have been filed though the matter is pending from 2016, except oral assertions. Whether the departmental enquiry is pending or there is any direction to stop the salary is not forthcoming from the records. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.8.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.8.2016 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/