Loading...

Prof S B Malipatil vs The Union Of India Ministry Of … on 10 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Prof S B Malipatil vs The Union Of India Ministry Of … on 10 November, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
 A A ;fv1:§y.SEI?'.IC:i'{I':: sus. SAIIANSHETTY, ADVOCATE)

IN THE PBGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT
BENCH AT GULBARGA -

DATED THIS TIIE_I§"DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2OIOf"%«IET'
BEFORE  A ~  " A I

THE HON'BLE MR. }USTICE ANAND EYRAiREDDR'::   2
WRIT PETITION NO. 46s%99OE'I2002' (SI   T

WRIT PETITION NOv§V_'3fZ73'0.OI?.'2I(5O3 (S)
IN W.P.NO.:416559§.OPE',/2003} -  '  C

BETWEEN} 

PrOf.[S.B. M'3.}i.pati7L'  _'  

S/O B:21.sava1'eddy':MaiipéIIi1_,"" T '

Aged atOI'1't55'y'eaI°--s','~   

Principal,  Law .CO1.1éige,

Gujbaiga Districtw.' V ' _..PETITIONER

I. . he Union Of India
. -Minist1'y Of Home Resources
And Development,
Department Of Education,
Shastri Bhavan,

New Deihi -- E10 00}.
By its Secretary.

@

 



ix.)

The State of Karnataka
Department of Education,

M.S. Building,

Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,

Bangaiore --- 560 001.

By its Secretary.   

3. The Commissionerate of
Collegiate Education '
in Karnataka,
Seshadri Road,  -
Bangaiore W» 560 00.1. 

4. The Joint Director  _ V, r .
Coilegiateiiflducaiion'in,  ,_ 
      
Gu1t:>airga..Dist1.icit.'-._:.,,,,_ ,   ' A

5. v't'Univer$i,ty G:~ams£:ommis'sion,
 ahad.ui"Sha,,h' 'Zai'a1fTv1arg,
New Delhi 94 A110'  
Bvits iSecfetai"y, " 

.- V.  6,': ' ,'IfheVvI-Iydeia«b.f<1cl. Karnataka

Eeiiication Society,

' . "Rép.rese'iited by its President. ...Respondents

  Archana P. Tiwari, CGSC for Respondent No.1,

  Shri."  Kumar, Additional Government Advocate for
 xRie'3pondent No.2 to 4, Shri. B.N. Prasad, Advocate for
ifRe3pondent No.3, Shri. Dinesh Kurnar, Advocate for

 Respondent No.5, Shri. Praveen Raikote, Advocate for
" -"Respondent No.6)



 v_Theii,State of Karnataka

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to declare that the petitionel' is
entitled to be paid the pay in scale of pay as 1'ecomme.n,dedi'o,y
the U.G.C. with effect from 01.01.1986. lg  

IN W.P. NO.3273O OF 2003

BETWEEN:

Sri. Kallayya R. Sthawaramath,
S/o Revayya Sthawaramath, ' 

Aged about 49 years,
SSL Law College, .   .   ~ _
Gulbarga District.    V ._ A  ' l';v.,PE5I:lT'IONER

(By Shri. s,s§   Adv§.i<'-k=}i<

i  ~Writ  is filed under Article 226 of the

  Vofilndia praying to declare that the petitioner is

.ientiit1ed_to'iihetpaid the pay in scaie of pay as recommended by

 theiU.C«.:_Ci with effect from 01.01.1996.

These Writ Petitions having been heard and reserved

ifoni {)2.09.2{).E0 and coming on for pronouncement of

A  Judgment this day, the Court deiivered the foilowingz -

é



ORDER

These petitions are heard and disposed of _toge,th€:_r

having iegard to the facts and circumstances.

2. The petitioner in
the Principal of Seth.” liuahoti l_.iCo1lege,
Gulbarga. It is contelndied’ Policy,
1986, for teachers
throughoul of the constitutional
maintenance and co-

ordinationiof education and with a view to

attract and reta_ihitale.nt in the teaching profession and in

» :accordanceJWit_h the recommendations of the RC. Mehrothra

those of the UGC, the Central Government

had revised the pay scales of the teachers in Universities and

“ii .Cio’llteges, excluding the Agricultural Universities. And all the

Hlcolleges were admitted to the privileges of the Universities.

gs

in this regard the Government of India extended

financial assistance to such of the State governments’-.v_vl1o

adopted and implemented the Scheme, subjecti.

conditions. ln view of the offer of financial.’assistatIce”ni_adet’… V

by the Central Government, the State

implement the revised pay sca.le’st,as recomme’.ndedilillhyil the

Central government By an Order
dated 30–3–1:990Ltiie imtileimented the same
in respect=i’ lia:ndiPhysical Directors of
However , the State
Goveriinjieinty reasons , did not include the
colleges Stateiinto the Scheme.

is contended that the college of the petitioner

earlier affiliated to the Karnatak University ,is

noiia/..aift’1liated to the Gulbarga University. That the State

.Vg:ove1’nment had extended the revised scales of pay

lgrecornmended by the UGC and accepted by the Government

of India, to the teachers of tg colleges under the control of

On several representations made to the State and

Central Governments to extend the benefit of UGC sc.a_1e.silto

the law colleges, the UGC had requested’1—the:”i*.State’~—-if ~

Government to implement the scales: ofpay recon§ic1ie4nded_jby’i’V, 1

it to the staff of the law colleges”;—.

It is contended tthatV_the Sitate. hadexcluded
eight colleges from the of pay scales,
which is one of several
repeated lithe Government, an
as on 20-9-1995 to state that

there wa”s,__noVvprovisiioiiiha extend the said benefit to law

But “t”ne__I}’GC had by a letter dated 4-11-1995 ,

‘ “that:.t’iie staff of law colleges were also included in

itheflist _of”et:~liieges approved under the provisions of section

2(n of___the ooc Act,1956. But this was to no avail, as the

‘Director of collegiate education continued to hold that the

.–7proposa1 to extend the benefit was kept pending.

{E

in this background the petitioner had approached”-.this

court by way of a writ petition in WP

seeking appropriate directions to the respondents;”»..Hoivv’eyver,’ ” i

the petitions were disposed of by order

directing the petitioners to remedy
under the Karnataka Accordingly, an
appeal was filediunder ll of the said Act.
The same 1 2- E 998.

the UGC deciding to
reviselithe «pay librarians etc.,the State of

Karnatakallllb;t_:laIiw.”orderdated 15-EE–E999, revised the pay

.sc’aEesE*iof teachersillinlllKarnatal<a with effect from "l-1-1996.

laotvever, confined to the teachers, physical

dir'ecto–rs etc., in the government colleges, under the control of

itnie.._Diirector of Collegiate Education. Teachers of law

lfcollleges were excluded from the benefit of the revision.

«L5

10

The petitioner therefore filed a writ petition in WP
31886/2000, which came to be disposed of in
earlier decision of a division bench of this court 0.
3894 / 2000 dated 11-4-2001, whie:i1s»ieVo1veeiiiei4ii
in Belgautn. The Division Bench ii 2

“(I)n view of the deeis’iogi”rof the’

court in State of Vifirliansubhai
Pragaji _Vashi~ A116 “‘2 i State
Go ieanhoti Jen); in aid to
prime clétiegesiiogfiizozhgégmse fulfils the
. tiééiiizg a part of the
of salaries to the
teaching sta’)ji’i’isi a concomitant of the
i obligatio:a.ievhjoirted on the State to extend the
aid. In fact the State Government

1 iiotfderty its obligation to sanction the

grant. ‘But the only impediment seems to be

*~ that the Central government has not

released its share which is the major share.
In these circumstances, we consider it just

and proper to direct the State Goverriment to

rake expeditz’r)us steps to eorisider the

5

11

appellants request for e.tten.s’ion of UGC
payscale.s soon. after the Central
Government eommimieates the approval
the release of its contribution towards
pay scales . the order of the learned”

Judge is modified to this extent. ”:Q.._ A. 3

5. It is contended that the.Are«Sp()ndY:I§.tSlA’ ‘failed.rtolll’–..L

comply — the petitioner filed a clonltempt petitioii itlwas then

revealed l’.§he;1::jU_r_iron « of. jthatl they were unable to
ctintrilmte _the_ii* share there was no budgetary
allocatiori for thellfperiodl’eoinniencing from 01.01 . l 986. And

that the requestViri__th1ss1’egard by the State Government was

be.late:d,and henee”‘*eoa1d not be granted. It was also stated

l1.hatith’e..:Ai””tate:vllC:()vemment had been duly informed of this

i)ositio:1’ais.i”on 24.01200} itself. The petitioner would hence

.. contend that the state government had not brought this

circumstance to the attention of this court either before the

H learned single judge or the Division Bench on the earlier

occasion. In any event the blame lies at the door of the State

5

government as it had delayed sending the proposal for the

payment of the UGC scale , to the Central G0V6lfHI}il€:rllt._V_,

which was due from £986. To add to this even .

the revision of pay scales due from ii

government had not made any effort iobtain_,pisanctig,i.,£§f’i–.

grant. It is in the wake of thesev-.cii’cumstancesathatitheiifirst of

the writ petitions is filed.’~~.__

6. pp petitions the
director since the year
l975:;VV_in in the first of these petitions. He
_is sirniliarlyiu raised identical contentions.

«pefition has been contested by respondent

0 Diireictor of Collegiate Education, to contend that the

lecturevrsiiiwoirking _in Government First Grade Colleges,

pp ?$rivate_.ii:’Aided Degree Colleges and ?rivate aided Law

ii “~s_iicoiieges were drawing the State pay scale of Rs. 1900-3650

“till 3l.E2.i.985.The Government by its order dated

30.03.1990 had revised the pay scales of lecturers granting

%

18

the same. The Central Government is justified in its stan’CL,as
per Annex.ure-N to these petitions, the same does ”

interference.

The State Government shal1:’..:oomp1}3 \’vit.}:1-.itihis”{}*rt1er;Viit
within a period of six weeiiis,”—-.fai1ing._ xivhich’i,thei._’a.:nQu3ntsi

payable to the petitioners sha£1’Acarryv.interest.’e1ttherate of 8%

per annuzn, from date of4’c’ief.::1u1te.ttfl of payment.

DK_

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information