Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15330 (KAR)

SRI SUBHASH B M v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30137/2016 · 2025-03-26

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30137 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI SUBHASH B.M., S/O KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD MASTER, SRI TEGGINAMATHA SANSKRIT PATASHALE, HARAPANAHALLI-583 131, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PADMANABHA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NEW PUBLIC OFFICER, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NEW PUBLIC OFFICER, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SANSKRIT EDUCATION KARNATAKA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY PAMPA MAHAKAVI RASTHE, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018. 5. THE SECRETARY, SRI TEGGINAMATH ARTS AND EDUCATION SOCIETY, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3. SRI.S.Y.RODAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4, R-5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES OF 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEMO DTD 22.6.2015 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-U AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE 6 ANNUAL INCREMENTS GRANTED IN TERMS OF ANNEXURE-P AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a memo bearing No.Ka Sam Vi : Sam. Shi Ni :04 . Ve, Ba. Aa /2012-13, dated 22.06.2015, issued by the respondent No.4, by which, six annual increments - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 that were proposed to be granted to the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to release and pay the salary for the period from 01.02.2005 till November 2011 by considering his representations dated 12.09.2012, 29.11.2012, 23.03.2013, 11.12.2014 and 23.01.2015, in the light of the directions issued by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 for release of salary of the petitioner. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that Respondent-5, is a private educational institution, which was recognized by the respondent No.3 on 17.10.1970. The institution was admitted for salary and maintenance grant by the respondent No.3, vide order dated 29.01.1975. The institution was running a Sanskrit Pata Shala from the year 1969 till it was taken over by the respondent No.4 in the year 2010 in view of a Government order dated 15.10.2010 followed by a notification dated 8.11.2010 issued by Respondent No.4. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 02.11.1993 by the respondent No.5. His appointment was approved with aid in terms of a memorandum dated 30.06.1995. He contends - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 that he was working in the Sanskrit Pata Shala ever since then. However, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 withheld his salary for the period February 2005 till November 2011 without any justification and without issuing any notice and without passing any formal order. On enquiry, the petitioner realized that his salary was withheld in view of the pendency of W.P.No.15382/2006 filed by Sri.Panchaksharaiah, the Head Master of the Sanskrit Pata Shala claiming arrears of salary. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13.04.2007 with a direction to the authorities of the department to consider the claim of Sri.R.Panchaksharaiah. Later, Sri.R.Panchachaksharaiah, died on 29.10.2007 and the arrears of the salary up to the date of his death was paid to his legal heirs. (ii) The petitioner contends that he therefore requested the respondent No.1 to release the arrears of salary for the period February 2005 till November 2011. The respondent No.3 by an order dated 27.07.2009 withdrew the recognition granted to Sanskrit Pata shala with retrospective effect, that is from 01.02.2005. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 by a communication dated 17.11.2009 addressed to the respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 No.1 requested to withdraw the order dated 27.07.2009. The respondent No.3 by a communication dated 30.10.2009 to the respondent No.1 recommended the continuation of the recognition of Sanskrit Pata Shala and to transfer the petitioner to Diddi Anjaneya Sanskrit Shala, Honnali. The respondent No.1 then addressed a communication dated 26.04.2010 to the respondent No.3 regarding continuation of recognition of Sanskrit Pata shala and sought for some clarifications. (iii) The petitioner contends that he made a representation dated 07.08.2009 to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to release the salary. The respondent No.1 by its letter dated 10.03.2010 directed the respondent No.2 to take necessary action to release the salary arrears of the petitioner. (iv) However, the salary of the petitioner remained unpaid. Later, the respondent No.5 filed a statutory appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, challenging the withdrawal of recognition dated 27.07.2009. This appeal was transferred to the respondent No.4 in terms of an order dated 30.05.2011. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent No.4 granted recognition to the Sanskrit Pata Shala on 02.12.2011. The petitioner therefore made representations - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 dated 12.09.2012, 29.11.2012 and 23.3.2013 to the respondent No.4 requesting to release the arrears of salary from February 2005 to November 2011. Instead of releasing the arrears of salary by granting the increments and fixing the scale of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 extended the benefits of annual increments from 01.06.2006 and accordingly fixed the salary in the year 2012. However, the arrears of salary was not paid to the petitioner. (iv) Therefore, the petitioner submitted another representation to the respondent No.4 on 11.12.2014, followed by another representation dated 23.01.2015. The petitioner relied upon the order dated 29.10.2007 passed in the case of Sri.R.Panchaksharaiah where his legal heirs were granted the arrears of salary up to 29.10.2007 including the period during which the recognition of the Sanskrit Pata Shala was withdrawn. The petitioner contends that instead of considering the request of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the respondent No.5 to send a revised salary bill refixing the salary of the petitioner, excluding the benefit of increments granted for the period 01.06.2006 to 01.06.2011. The Sanskrit Pata Shala forwarded a letter dated 16.05.2016 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 refixing the salary of the petitioner, excluding the six annual increments as directed. The respondent No.4 acting on the communication of Respondent No.5 refixed the salary of the petitioner excluding the six annual increments, vide his letter dated 22.06.2015. The petitioner therefore, is before this Court seeking for the afore stated reliefs. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that after the recognition of the Sanskrit Pata Shala was withdrawn, it was incumbent upon the State Government to transfer the petitioner to an aided institution and since the petitioner was allowed to continue in the same institution and the institution was permitted to exist between February 2005 to November 2011 and the students of the institution were permitted to take up the examination during the period 2005 to 2011 and the results of the examinations were announced, the petitioner is deemed to be continued in the Sanskrit Pata Shala and therefore, he is entitled to the salary for the period February 2005 to November 2011 notwithstanding the withdrawal of the recognition. 4. He also contends that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not take any steps to transfer the petitioner to Diddi Anjaneya - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 Sanskrit Pata Shala as recommended by respondent No.3 and therefore, the respondents cannot deny the salary payable to the petitioner from February 2005 to November 2011. Besides this, he contends that if the petitioner's service is continued notwithstanding the withdrawal of the recognition, the petitioner would be entitled to annual increments, which was recommended by the respondent No.4 that was later withdrawn without any justifiable reason. He therefore contends that the petitioner is entitled for not only the arrears of salary for the aforesaid period but also the fixation of salary by factoring the increments to which the petitioner is entitled. 5. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.4 who contends that the Sanskrit Pata Shala was run by Sri.Tegginamatha Arts and Education Society, Harapanahalli which was recognized and was admitted to aid. It is contended that the recognition so granted was withdrawn by the respondent No.2 with retrospective effect dated 01.02.2005. It also issued orders to transfer the petitioner to Diddi Anjaneya Sanskrit Pata Shala, Honnali, which was also an aided school, where a single post was vacant. It is contended that the respondent No.2 by a communication dated 30.05.2011 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 addressed to the Vice Chancellor of respondent No.4 informed that henceforth, all Sanskrit Pata Shalas, Colleges, shall come under the purview of the Sanskrit University and that all files pertaining to the respondent No.5 should be transferred for further action. It is admitted that the recognition which was withdrawn, was later restored for the academic year 2011-12 till 2013-14. Subsequently, the pay fixation of the petitioner was also restored by granting the annual increments. It is contended that since the recognition was withdrawn, the consequent aid granted to the institution was also withdrawn by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, there was no question of paying the salary to the petitioner, as the petitioner had not discharged any duty either at respondent No.5 or at the Diddi Anjaneya Sanskrit Pathashala Honnalli. It is also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the annual increments. In so far as the benefits granted to Sri.R.Panchaksharaiah, it is stated that the same was pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15382/2006. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 was allowed to continue and that the petitioner had discharged duties at the respondent No.5, is unacceptable as - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 the recognition was again granted with effect from 2011-12 and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the salary and emoluments from the year 2011-12 only. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the salary arrears from 01.02.2005 till November 2011, when the recognition was re-granted to the respondent No.5. He contends that the petitioner is therefore not entitled to the six annual increments between the year 2005 till the year 2011. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent No.1 supported the claim of the respondent No.4. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 8. The fact that the Sanskrit Pata Shala was admitted to salary and maintenance grant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner at the Sanskrit Pata Shala was admitted to grant in aid with effect from - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 30.06.1995. The recognition of the Sanskrit Pata Shala was withdrawn in terms of an order dated 27.07.2009 with effect from 01.02.2005. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not granted his salary from the year 2005. Though the respondent No.2 had passed an order dated 30.10.2009 to transfer the petitioner to Diddi Anjaneya Sanskrit Pata shala, Honnali, no formal orders were passed and therefore, the petitioner could not have reported at Diddi Anjaneya Sanskrit Pata Shala. It appears that the respondent No.1 in terms of a letter dated 26.04.2010 had directed the respondent No.3 to furnish information about the three teaching staff who were working at the Sanskrit Pata Shala and also the claim of one of the deceased teachers for the arrears of salary. It is also not in dispute that the recognition was again granted to the Sanskrit Pata Shala on 02.12.2011. Therefore, for the period 01.02.2005 till 02.12.2011, the petitioner was not granted the salary and the increments to which he was entitled. The respondent No.3 in terms of a letter bearing No.PÀ¸ÀA«:¸ÀA²¤:EvÀgÉ 01/2011-12, dated 16.01.2012 had refixed the salary of the petitioner by granting the annual increments. Instead of giving effect to the same, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 order denying the benefit of the arrears of the salary for the period of 01.02.2005 till November 2011. On the contrary, the arrears of salary of Sri.R.Panchaksharaiah including the period during which the recognition was withdrawn, was granted to his legal representatives. This duality of the conduct of respondent No.4 shows that the petitioner was discriminated vis a vis Sri.R.Panchaksharaiah, who was a head master at the same Sanskrit Pata Shala where the petitioner was working. 9. If the recognition granted to the respondent No.5 was withdrawn, it was incumbent upon the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to ensure that the staff at Sanskrit Pata Shala are reposted at another aided institution. On the contrary, though the respondent No.4 had stated in the statement of objections that appropriate orders were passed transferring the petitioner to Diddi Anjaneya Sanskrit Pata Shala, no document to that effect is placed on record. The only document that is found is a recommendation made by the respondent No.2 requesting permission from the respondent No.1 to transfer the petitioner to Diddi Anjaneya Sanskrit Pata Shala. 10. Under the circumstances, the petitioner was deprived of the salary for the period February 2005 till the year - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 November 2011 for no fault of his. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the arrears of salary for the period from February 2005 till the year November 2011 and is also entitled to the annual increments. 11. In that view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned memo dated 22.06.2015 issued by the respondent No.4 is quashed. iii. The respondent No.1 to 4 are directed to release and pay the salary arrears of the petitioner for the months of February 2005 till November 2011 and also grant the six annual increments and refix the salary of the petitioner according to scale and grant all consequential benefits. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12890 WP No. 30137 of 2016 iv. In order to ensure compliance of this order, list this petition on 26.06.2025. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24