IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.7864/2018(S-RES) BETWEEN SRI SHANKARALINGEGOWDA S/O HANNUGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS P.E. TEACHER IN RANGANATHA HIGH SCHOOL MALLOHALLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT R/O NO.3, III CROSS DWARAKANAGAR, BSK III STAGE BENGALURU-560085 (BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 ... PETITIONER 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (HIGHER AND PRIMARY EDUCATION) AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BENGALURU RURAL OPP KAVERI BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU 560009 (BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN APPEAL NO.13/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE- ‘L’ 6.3.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND AS OTHERWISE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was working as Physical Education teacher in Jnanamitra, High School, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore. The Institution is an aided institution having been admitted to grant on 19.06.1983 and the petitioner was admitted to salary grant by notification dated 16.05.1986.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is due to retire at the end of this month. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to extend the time bound increment to the petitioner for having completed twenty years of service on the basis of entry into service on 08.07.1982 along with arrears and interest.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the factual matrix of this case is identical to the one in W.P.No.51256/2014 in the matter of Smt.Sevrine D’Souza Vs. State of Karnataka and others which was disposed of on 12.06.2018.
4. The petitioner herein had approached this Court in W.P.No.50311/2014 which was disposed of on 16.01.2015 granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy available under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Appeal No.13/2015 before the appellate tribunal. However, the appeal was dismissed on 06.03.2017.
5. As seen in W.P.No.51256/2014, the appeal filed by the petitioner therein was also dismissed by the appellate authority. This Court had observed that the first time bound increment on completion of ten years was granted to the petitioner therein by taking into consideration the date of joining service on 01.06.1988 and the subsequent benefit was also extended to the petitioner therein. However, while subsequently considering the benefit for completion of twenty years, the respondents have taken into consideration the date of admission of the post of the petitioner to grant and not the date of entry into service. This Court has held that the once the authorities have reckoned the date of entry into service for granting the benefit of first increment on completion of ten years, it is not permissible for the authorities to reckon a different date for granting the benefit on completion of twenty years. Moreover, in W.A.No.170/2008, the Hon’ble Division Bench was of the considered view that the appellant therein was eligible for salary with effect from her initial appointment and she was entitled for time bound increment as per the Circular dated 04.10.1996. The writ petition in W.P.No.51256/2014 was therefore allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to calculate the benefits by reckoning the date of joining into service and not the date of admission of the post to grant-in-aid.
6. In the light of the above, the petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 06.03.2017 at Annexure ‘L’ passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No.13/2015 is accordingly quashed and set aside.
7. A direction is issued to the respondents to calculate the benefits by considering the date of joining from 08.07.1982 and calculate the period from the said date for the time bound increment and on determining the difference of the amount payable to the petitioner, the same shall be paid as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date on which a copy is furnished.
The petition is accordingly allowed.
At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have recovered certain sum from the petitioner during the proceedings of this petition. In that case, the respondents are directed to repay the said amount that was recovered from the petitioner.
JT/-
SD/- JUDGE