IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN
BETWEEN:
1
WRIT PETITION N0.25143 OF 20o.2°{sv§.:§jV?'Ej"' E-
BHARATH GOLD MINES EDUECATION CR0MM1'm~:.E~._R"*--,
SUVARNA BHAVAN. OQI:2_(3AUM---- POST " ' '
K.G.F. 563 120. R£+3PRES.E1\1TED By V
1'18 SECRETARY 'W
BHARAT1~1 GOLD _
OORGAUM POST' ':13? 5631-.1:.20"--j: A
REPRESENTED BY I'i'S_ ' ~ =
PERSONNEL _MANA(;ER E 'PETITIONERS
[BY sR1f_1* 'R1xJAi1z;-94:;;IJCAT1_ D EPARTM ENT.
._ " ..1V%«G0\I_£13Ngv1'ENT OF KARNATAKA.
' BA:NG'A_I;ORE.
REVATH1
W'/0. VIJAYA GOPAL
"~_.MAJOR. R/AT ROBE'.R'1'SONPE3'I'
' °GEET}-IA ROAD, K.G.F.
TERESA VIOLET J EREMAIAH
D/ O. CYRIL JAMES J EREMAIAH
'.52
k./
ASSISTANT TEACHER.
BGIVIL. ENGLISH NURSERY SCHOOL
{PARKINSON MEMORIAL]
OORGAON POST. K.G.F.
4 M RAJAN. D/O. RKASHINATHAN
MAJOR, ASSISTANT TEACHER. BGML.
ENGLISH NURSERY SCHOOL
(PARKINSON IVIEMORIAL}
OORGAON POST. K.G.F.
5 S ALPHONSO
ASSISTANT TEACHER.
SINCE DEAEQ) BY PIER , _
MOTHER L.R. SIVIT. LOURDA MARY .
LAKSHIVIISAGAR VILLAGE» " .
ANEJERSONPEI' PO. I<.G.I«f_...
6 JAYA BHARAT}-II _
ASSISTANT TEACHER _ . _
BGML ENGLISH I\IU'RS:5:RY' SCHOOL'
(RAIRI<.II\I'SOI\I*1:M.£«:IvTORIAL;~....,,,..P
CI_ORGAOI':{ I{O?ST',--.IV<f.'v<}.F._ -
7 CORM'ELIA,I?'A-Riiliifi "
W/O';H.I_,EwIS_ . "
_ E~?.E'I'D. ASSISTAN"-I' I\?IISTRI«:SS
.. «QBGML T2NGI..ISI-~-I NURSERY SCHOOL
'(R.ARRINSON IVIEIVIORIAI.)
OORGA'O,N POST. K.G.F. RESPONDENTS
IIIBY.§3«RI"SI'_I§.E.ASHIWATIIIANARAYANA. ADV. FOR R24 5: S8:
' __SI\/IT, .I\/1".§'.;I\IAGASIi REE. I-ICGP FORR1)
'E'IfII';'3 WI' FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
,ICTO1\:STITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH 'I"HE ORDER
"«.IDT.II'_.--3--2OO2 PASSED BY PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVT. IN
APPEAI, NO. I2/2000 (ED 68 PIVEC 2000] VIDE AI\IN.I).
N
TI-HS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING. THIS DAY
THE COURT MADE THIS FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The 15% petitioner an Edueatiorgf’Conirriit.t{ee°»
constituted by the 2m petit.ioner”t.o”maI’iage’:tEfie i’1’t1ii:sery O
section of the school run by’ the 2.?'”–pet.ition.e1*’»was~;_not””a
recipient of gra1’tt.win«aid
Respondents 2 to 7 Teachers
in the BGML English promised all
benefits admigssiiidle’ teirrnss code or
whatever the St”a.t,e GoV_e15.’n.3nent. allows, from time to time.
The 1’it?_petiit.ioner;V–_it.<;ipp:ears_ -rep1'esent.ed to the State for
grar1t'«i1'1«ai:i_ 'in VV'res';)e{.',t"_.'t' bf the Ntiixseiy wing of the
edue;:23tt',ioi3a1 i11s't.'i1_uHt.i()i,'i. When Respondems 2 to 7 were
11ot.*paid_t:he.._re\{ised scales of pay' provident fund' gratuity
and"p'e1'1vs1oij12ijfif bene1'it'.s with effect from 1» 1» 1987 despite
'.V_repeetted*.:_ requests. filed a petition before the let
A '~:if1'es;p"ci«nde11t. invoking Sections 131 and 133 of the
M
Karnatiaka Education Act. 1983 for short: 'the Act' for the
following reliefs: l
"[1] Issue a direction ;_. '
Respondents to consider and pay'
Pay Scale as revised '.V€'€f€Ct
l-1~1987 and thereafter "
principles of equal
consequential benefits of
salary, allovvanc;,e§”‘p«– interest of
justice:
ii) l._di1-ecito 1fespc_1’iderit.s °to”gi’ve all service
benlefitslto No’.”/éficonsequeiit. to her
reti1’en1entfon”1O*.Q.l~1§9’98 as per with other
ret.ired e11iploy’ees_”‘«~._ ‘
l3et:it’.ione–rS.___¢}_I’.Iiaigned as Respondents l and 2. on
riotice. –ven~teiied.._appearance and resisted the petition by »’
t’iling’lStateine1i1t of objections dated ‘nil’ Annexure-“C”.
lV._tnt,eralta.’3_adrr1it.t.ing that the 2″” respondent. [H petitioner
ftherci.11) was appointed as Assistant. l\/Iistress in the
Nt§trse1’y School on 22-06-1977 on a consolidated salary of
fl,}’€£\
Rs.30O/H per month; the 7″‘ respondent. (Gm petitioner
therein), was appointed as Assistant. Mis.tr.es«.si’~..von
consolidated salary of R5257/~ per
Respondents 3 t.o 6 (Pet.it.ioners~~2»._to
appointed as Assistant Mistresses the pay
Rs.3-40-15~/400-20- 5oou25~sorj}’aom75’o:_2:3isQo’;’~«§”i ”wit.hout’ ‘
payment of Dearness’ ..aiiowanee’.:’ ‘i”nstead”oAf V-oontinuing
them on payment of it was stated
that the scale .Vt_o;jRespo11dents 2 to 7
though Consolidated salary. it
was school in which they
were tvoifiaiiug grant under the grant.-in~aid
(ZOdE’.,~’ –.1t speoifiealiyi”-denied that the appointments were
‘”i1(V)tV,”‘in thee time scales simiiar to the scale of pay drawn by
‘i’r__i”e,d5ueational institutions. receiving grant. from
the”‘««St.a._t.’e aiider the grant-in–aid code. in addition, it is»
Jsitated “that the appointments and the pay seaie were
_’ based on the financial position of the 1*” petitioner —
“‘Cornmit.t.ee though some arnouni” was extended as grant: by
()
the 2″” respondent W Company. At: the request. of the
teachers. it is stated that the B.S.M. Education Committee
took up the cause to the 2m’ petitioner who sane’t.ioned
some amount of grant / donation as a one-tin.1e’4*rneasure
to extend to the teachers working in the V’
with effect from 01.04.1982. the
teachers as applicable to Prirnaiy teacifier’s
in aided educational lnstltutiolrisfi» When._t_h’e later
on reduced the requestof the t_eacheV1’s.to extend the pay
scales applicablepto P1’irn_ary_ due to loss
occasioned yeafruafti-lzrl y_ea«1f.’ was denied on the premise that
neither t’he*l*t ‘peti.tione.r'”‘noi’ the 2″” petitioner had the
capacity to pay. ‘the 1+» }’jet.itioner it was asserted was an
lllilidepelndientj~_bodyvHmconstituted for the welfare of the
is-chools vvin’v–.the:’.1ni’ning township While the main business of
the ‘2…”<t pe'Litioner being mining activity was controlled by
H ;Cen'tral Government. and having occasioned losses in
_l -_b"L1s'i'ness, the £5' petitioner had no capacity to pay nor
source to generate additional resources to meet the
MK
additional liability of payment of revised pay scales to
teachers of primary schools. The teachers havingdfiled
W.P.l\los.34250, 35060 and 35063/1999,.$'_:t,'hisfj-Cfoii-.i,_r't:_
rejected the petitions reserving liberty to"t1'1~e:'_petiti'oners".
therein t.o seek appropriate remedies"u'nd'e.r S€%c:.ti6ns
130 and 133 of the Ka1'11af.E1k;ci'"E§1Ll{?'&i'"t.ic)1'1 lsastlyil'
it was contended that 2'I<'l.flp*eti'tione1.9 Lstgonjipaliy was
facing a closure and pending before
the .BIFR and Financial
Reeonstructi'()hl._pa~hd___ the 15' petitioner
by its letter
dated all the schools managed by it.
‘I’he ._1<ure.~»"D" allowed the
it . repi'-es'e11i',ation and directed the l-'~'* petiiiioner to release the
MK
admissible salaries and pensionary benefits including
arrears to the teachers for the period they had worked_. in
accordance. with law. Hence. this writ petitioni. 3' '
4. Petition is opposed ‘_t_)y..__filing”‘”Stiatei’;<ie'I1t .._vo'f@'
objections of Respondents 2 to a.,'nd"62an'(:|_:"7«uiri'tera1ia
reiterating the averments 'out. in'"the petvitiori'-iiinvoking 3
Sections 131 & 133 of. the Elxd-ur.§ation_Ac:t.."–Res;aondents 2
to 7 seek t.o sustain as being well-
rnerited, fully. interference. it
is pointed No.5 is re’port.edly dead
and inliae—r’ plzi(::e’:-,Re»spoi’1dent No.8 who is the widow is
subst.itut.e”d.. ” .
The i’i1’st;Vst;_bi:’1issirin of the learned counsel for the
‘pet’itio1i.er~th_a1:the petition under Sections 131 and 133 of
ti*ie”i{arnat.a1V{aVEducation Act. 1983 is not maintainaible,
cleserttesfto be rejected. This contention must. necessarily
A the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this
C§)1,1rt. in VIDYAVARDI-IAKA SANGHA BY ITS
M
L;
HONORARY SECRETARY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECY. AND OTHERS1 holding that under VS-3ect.io’n
i45{2){xL) of the Act, the State Govcrnrnerit
with the power of framing appropriate
purpose of implementing the p’rovi’s’inAn’s of.lVlt’h.eVAc=t’ to
provide for the procedure or ijegulate t’un:t:vtio1*1.i:*1g:lg’=.ot’*~they
pre+prirnary and nonwformal’=e€iucational”-institutions or
the procedure 1’equii=ed ” yfollowedull for the
establishment of such ‘l’ecl’ucla€;lion~aI=l[ins~titutions while
Section 3{2}Lj}_'” on the State
Gove1’nyn1enti’tr} ‘V_pei5rnii_4la1;i’cl es1.:al)lish institutions or seeks
for pre~’priln1a’ry_ E-.~c’Iu.e.2it’4ilt3e:.1V “anti non»formal education. In
the light llthel’ decision of the Division Bench, it is
needl;essc..t.o st,at.e”t.lhe1tl’t,he petition filed by Respondents 2
.”tr) 7- lldifcl not suffer from any lack of jurisdiction or
inscornpe.t.e1’1cet.o invoke the provisions of the Act to grant
their-e1ie.l’ for by Rcsponderits 2 to 7.
. .y;1_:.Vi’2,2<ji'r1;5 ;<,=x;"< 490?
m
6. As regards the next. contention. eoneededly.
petitioners extended to Respondents 2 t.o 7 the of
pay scales as applicable to primary school:__t.eaehe1§s*’.._.ir:.V
aided institutions. in that view,..,o’I_’ t,he”Vrnat’I;erh.”‘rii.erely’»
because the 2″” petitioner has oeieasioited i’o_u’si_nessvV’iiosses
and is a subject: matter of dee_ision niakiizg ox/e’11_jWh.e’t.jher it V
ought to be liquidated ‘in Coniparfi Petition
No.180/2000, that more cannot
disentitle ‘t_.u(j~.V_t’1″ie”;frvvi1its of the order
impugned. 5U’rirdoLavtj’t._ed1-y.._1.11.3first petitioner is the creator
of the Z3?” pei’tit}io11e.7r,’ t:()”‘rnar1age the affairs of the schools
a.nd edutiationai in”s.t,’ivt t,it:~i.o”1’is;”‘()i* the 2″” petitioner company
and t.J;1–e. direc?t.i..()n’ in the order impugned is against the 1*”
“p’etit.i’or1e-id’; The order inipugned Cannot be found fauit
wit.h.i; ”
’71. learned Single Judge of this Court in S.S.
AND OTHERS vs. THE MANAGEMENT 01:’
GANDHI VIDYA PEETA (REGDJ.
tori
BANGALORE AND ANOTHER? heid that teachers in
unaided private educ2it.i()nal instit,ui.ions are eriti-t_41ei:1 to
same pay scales admissible to emp]0ye_eé3_
equivaient posts in aided institutigns.
8. Viewed in the light of theA:.afc§_re.said._deeisi’brii;–.iiivejre
is no iegal justification f.()’a_éi1y the’
right to equal pay for equal t1r1e”0rdeijf§impugned
cannot be said to be $0′ suffer from any
arbitrariness s(}f¢1.s”‘to Writ. petition is
without rne.I’iii’
sd/~
JUDGE
‘V V 33 A. ….. .. V
_V i*’;9:<' 33:; Km :93