IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.29341 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. BYRAPPA S/O LATE SRI. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.420/H, 9TH ‘E’ MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-40 (BY SRI. VISHWAJITH SHETTY.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . BENGALURU UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, JNANANBHARATHI, BENGALURU-560 056.
... PETITIONER 2 . THE UNIVERSITY VISWESWARAIAH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
R2- SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM R-1 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING ORDER DATEAD 9.4.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A MADE BY R-1; QUASH THE ORDER DATEAD 9.4.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A MADE BY R-1; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner now a retired employee of the 1st respondent University, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, in substance seeking a direction to the said University to fix his salary in the AICTE Pay Scales treating as a member of teaching staff.
2. After service of notice, the 1st respondent University having entered appearance through it’s Panel Counsel, opposes the Writ Petition; the 2nd respondent- University has remained unrepresented.
3. The counsel for the petitioner banking upon the decision dated 23.11.2018 made by this court in more or less a similar fact matrix in W.P.No.31788/2016 (S-RES) between R.S.Umeshaiah Vs. Bangalore University and Another, submits that the question whether a foreman is a member of teaching staff or not has already been answered in the affirmative in view of the Division Bench judgment dated 12.08.2005 in W.A.No.2704/2005 (S-R) and consequently, the AICTE Pay Scale needs to be extended especially when the challenge to the Division Bench judgment in Civil Appeal No.5620/2009 has been negatived by the Apex Court vide order dated 30.08.2017.
4. Although the learned counsel for the 1st respondent - University resisted the Writ Petition, nothing worthwhile has been brought about to discredit the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. There is no other reason, either, for singling out the petitioner for a differential treatment, when he is similarly circumstanced.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the University Order No.EST 1/E2/UVCE/RET/2005 (PART-1); a writ of mandamus issues directing the 1st respondent-University to treat the petitioner as a member of teaching staff and accordingly settle all his service benefits including the terminal benefits by fixing his salary in the admissible AICTE Pay Scales within an outer limit of three months.
If the benefits are not settled within the prescribed three months, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
from the date the same had become payable with retrospective effect.
Now, no costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS