IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.15287-15291/2019(S-RES) BETWEEN 1. SMT. N. SHANTHALAKSHMI W/O N.A.KASHIVISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC:ASSISTANT TEACHER, WORKED AT MODEL HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAGAMANGALA, NAGAMANGALA TQ., MANDYA DISTRICT 571432.
2. SMT. D. RATHNAMMA W/O SHANKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC:ASSISTANT TEACHER, WORKED AT MODEL HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAGAMANGALA, NAGAMANGALA TQ., MANDYA DISTRICT 571432.
3. SMT. MEENAKSHMMA N S W/O BHASKARA BHATTA C A, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC:ASSISTANT TEACHER, WORKED AT MODEL HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAGAMANGALA, NAGAMANGALA TQ., MANDYA DISTRICT 571432.
4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O S K LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC:ASSISTANT TEACHER, WORKED AT MODEL HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAGAMANGALA, NAGAMANGALA TQ., MANDYA DISTRICT 571432.
5. SMT. G. N. GIRIJA W/O S V SUBBARAMU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC:ASSISTANT TEACHER, WORKED AT MODEL HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAGAMANGALA, NAGAMANGALA TQ., MANDYA DISTRICT 571432.
(BY SMT. NIRUPAMA K. A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MARUTHI G. B, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTISTOREID BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, ... PETITIONERS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, MANDYA-571432.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, NAGAMANGAL, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT -571432.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M. S. PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 ) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF ONE ADDITIONAL INCREMENT TO THE PETITIONERS BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN TERMS OF THE HON'BLE COURT BY ITS ORDER DTD. 28.11.2018 PASSED IN W.P.NO. 58694-58703/2014 VIDE ANNX-L AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staffs of various Private Aided Educational Institution and some of the petitioners have retired from service. It is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed in their respective institutions. Subsequently, their appointments have been duly approved by the respondent authorities and their post have been admitted for grant. The grievance of the petitioners is common, in as much as they were denied one additional increment which they were entitled to, having passed Kannada Language Examination as required under the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1974 Rules’ for short). Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to one additional increment in terms of Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules and the same is fortified by a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.58694 -58703/ 2014, which was decided on 28.11.2018, Writ Appeal Nos.2779 & 4868-5434/2013, which are decided on 28.08.2013 and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in SLP No.38205-72/2013.
3. The very same question fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayanna and others Vs. High Court of Karnataka and another, in Writ Petition No.41542/2003, which was decided on 08.11.2010. In the said matter, similar to the case on hand, the petitioners had indeed passed or deemed to have passed the Kannada Language Examination prescribed under the 1974 Rules, for entitlement of one increment under Rule 6 thereof. The only question that arose for consideration was whether having acquired the aforesaid qualification, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the said increment.
4. Relying on the Rules 3 and 6 of the 1974 Rules, it was held that both in Rule 3(1) as also Rule 6 of the 974 Rules, the term ‘prescribed qualification’ has been qualified with the words ‘if any’, as such, in the absence of any prescribed qualification, it would not be essential for an employee to pass any such examination before he becomes entitled to the additional increment contemplated under Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules. It was therefore held that if there is no prescribed examination for any post in the service of the Government, an employee would be entitled to an additional increment, merely for having passed the Kannada Language Examination. Since all the petitioners therein had admittedly passed or deemed to have passed, the Kannada Language Examination stipulated under the 1974 Rules, for entitlement to the aforesaid increment, the claim of the petitioners under Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules was held to be fully justified.
5. In the light of the above, the petitioners are permitted to make a representation to the competent authority and respondents are directed to consider such representation and pass orders in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayanna and others Vs. High Court of Karnataka and another (supra). The respondents are directed to calculate and pay the petitioners one additional increment in terms of their entitlement under Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules, for the duration the same was available to the employees under the 1974 Rules. Payments due to the petitioners shall be released to them within a period of three months from the date of representation made by the petitioners.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed.
SD/- JUDGE DL