1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TEES THE 7'" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009 BEFORE: THE HoN'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1366] OF 2008 (S--RES) BETWEEN: Shri.J.B.ShiVanc;.'g7\ Son of Basappa, Aged about 59 years. Care of V.G.Taeraj, No.l693/a, Gundappa Nilaya, MTC Colony, T~Dasarahalli, Bangalore-560 057. ...PETITlONER (By Shri.C.V.Sudhlnd1"a, Advocate) AN D: l.. The Commissioner of Collegiate education, Karnataka, Sheshadri Road, Bangalore. 2. The Director of Collegiate Education, Karnataka, Sheshadri Road, Bangalore. 8 to 3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Gulbarga Regional Office, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Guibarga. 4. H.K.E.Society, Gulbarga, By its Secretary. .. . RESPONDENTS (By Shri.T.P.Srinivas, Additionai Government Advocate for Respondentl to Respondent.3, Respondent.4 served) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter/endorsement dated 1.8.2008, issued by the Respondent. l. and Respondent.2, as per Annexurej by declaring the same is illegal and has no application to the case of the petitioner and to declare the Respondentl and Respondent.2, to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner by taking the scale at Rs.l30--290 as the basis given to the post of First Division Clerk with subsequent increments and fix the pension accordingly and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for final hearing this day, the Court made the following: -- ORDER
Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the
respondents.
Assistants on or after 1.1.1970 was only from graduates in
science.
That the posts of Laboratory Assistants were existing i.n the
colleges fell under the jurisdiction of the Karnataka University,
Dharwad only. Their duties are akin to those of the First Division
Clerks like, maintenance of laboratory equipments, maintenance
of accounts, stock registers, issue registers etc., ‘i’he graduates
who were recruited as First Division Clerks to get promotion as
superintendents. But, the Laboratory Assistants remain as
Laboratory Assistants as there are no promotional opportunities.
Hence, on the 1’ecommendation of the second respondent, the State
Government issued an order dated 23.1.1979 equating the post of
Laboratory Assistants, who were graduates with those of First-
Division Clerks in the scale of pay of Rs.l30–290, which was the
1970 scale, with a further direction that the Laboratory Assistants
equated to the cadre of First Division Clerks should work as First
Division Clerks at least for one ygzr.
Following the said order, the second respondent had issued
a circular dated 3.4. E. 979 directing the management of the private
aided colleges affiliated to Karnataka University to take action
accordingly and to show the Laboratory Assistants in the seniority
list of First Division Clerks. A clarification was sought by one
B.C.Angadi by his representation dated 3.8.1979, as to whether
the said order of the Government and the circular of the second
respondent would be applicable to Laboratory Assistants working
in the institutions under the management of the third respondent.
The second respondent addressed to the Principal of
S.Nijalingappa College that the intention of the Government under
the above Government Order was to provide promotional channel
to Laboratory Assistants and eventualiy to abolish that cadre as
and when the existing Laboratory Assistants get promotion and it
was immaterial in which college they worked, with a further
instruction that the above circular dated 3.4.1979 followed in
respect of the Laboratory Assistants would apply to
S.Nijalingappa College also.
8
Following the said order and clarification, the petitioner
who was working as a graduate Laboratory Assistant was
informed to work as First Division Clerk in B.V.Bhoomaraddy .
College and he was entrusted such work against the vacancy of
First Division Clerk as per the Office Memo dated 271.1982. He
worked in that capacity from 27.1.1982 to 31.5.2008. He drew the
pay as per the scale fixed with subsequent increments issued from
time to time and ultimately he retired from service on 31.5.2008.
His service record was forwarded with i a recommendation to
settle his terminal benefits and the third respondent has also
recommended the sanie to the first respondent. While the
petitioner has been anxiously waiting the settlement of the
terminal benefits and fixation of pension, the respondents had
failed to do se.
it is by a letter dated 1.8.2008 from the first respondent to
the third respondent to send a proposal for refixing the scale of the
petitioner as Second Division Assistant, that the petitioner was
taken by shock and surprise. it is his contention that non~graduate
‘Z
8
3. The Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
aforesaid circumstances, submits that there is no second opinion
as to the petitioner’s entitlement in the light of the established
circumstances in relation to other similarly placed workmen and
hence, would submit that the petition be allowed.
4. While the Government Advocate would make a feeble
attempt to resist the petition.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, there is
little substance in the contentions urged by the Government
Advocate. In any event, he has not been in a position to file the
statement of objections to deny the petition averments. Having
regard to the categorical contentions raised with reference to the
annexures, which are produced in support thereof, the writ petition
is allowed. Annexure–J is quashed. The respondents are directed
to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner while adopting the
pay scale of Rs. 130-290 as the basis with subsequent increments
and fix the pension accordingly. The respondents shall comply
with this order forthwith, in any event, within a period of eight
‘E
9
weeks, if not e-arlier, from the date 01′ receipt of 21 celtified copy of
this order.
Sd/-3
JUDGE
TIV