Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.32873 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN: KRISHNEGOWDA .M S/O CHIKKA MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DIRECTOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION VIDYAVARDHAKA LAW COLLEGE SHESHADRI IYER ROAD MYSORE - 570 021. ALSO AT RESIDING AT # 113, 5TH MAIN D BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR 3RD STAGE MYSORE - 570 017. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN B.K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION VINOBA ROAD MYSORE - 570 021.
4. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR HUBLI - 570 021.
5. VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA (R) SHESHADRI IYER ROAD MYSORE - 570 021. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
6. THE PRINCIPAL VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA (R) SHESHADRI IYER ROAD MYSORE - 570 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 20.06.2018 - ANNEXURE -A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 20.06.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A thereby rejecting the representation seeking re-fixation of his salary for the period of service rendered during the unaided period i.e., from 20.03.1988 to 2007.
2. The petitioner has been serving as a Lecturer at
respondent No.5-Institution since 20.03.1988. The respondent No.5-Institution received grant-in-aid on 26.08.2015. Consequently, petitioner started receiving UGC pay scale from the said date.
3. The short question that falls for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled to re-fixation of his salary for the service rendered during the unaided period.
4. On perusal of the records, it is evident that
respondent No.1-State extended grant-in-aid to respondent No.6 with a specific condition. Before I advert to the dispute relating to re-fixation of petitioner’s pay scale during unaided period, it would be useful for this Court to refer to the Government Order dated 26.08.2015 vide Annexure-B. Clause 6 and 9 would be relevant and the same are extracted as under: “6. ಬ ಂ ಗಳ ೇತ ಾನು ಾನವ ಈ ಆ ೇಶ ೊರ ದ ಾಂಕ ಂದ ಾ !ೆ ಬರುತ" ೆ.
9. $ೋಧಕ ಮತು" $ೋಧ'ೇತರ ಬ ಂ ಯವರು ಅನು ಾನ ರ*ತ
ಅವ+ಯ,- ಸ,- /ೇ ೆಯನು0 1ಾವ ೇ /ೇ ಾ /ೌಲಭ5ಗ6!ೆ ಪ ಗ8ಸ9ಾಗುವ ಲ- ఎంబ ಷರ;" ಬದ< ಾ=ರು>ೆ"ೕ ೆಂದು ರೂ.50/- CಾDಾ 'ಾಗದದ,- ಮುಚF6'ೆ ಪತGವನು0 ಸಂಬಂ+ DಾG ೇHಕ ಜಂJ K ೇLಶಕರು ಬMೆN 'ೊಳOತಕPದುQ.”
5. As per clause 9 of the Government Order vide
Annexure-B, teaching and non-teaching staff were required to execute undertaking on Rs.50/- stamp paper, stating that they would not claim any benefits regarding previous service for the unaided period. The affidavit which is placed on record at Annexure-J clearly demonstrates that petitioner along with other staff members executed the said undertaking. The respondent No.1-State extended grant- in-aid vide order dated 26.08.2015 acknowledging the said undertaking. As delineated in clause 9 of the Government
Order vide Annexure-B, both teaching and non-teaching
staff were mandated to furnish an undertaking on Rs.50/- stamp paper, relinquishing any claim to benefits concerning the period of service during the unaided period.
6. In a bit to seek retrospective adjustment to his
salary, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.3-Joint Director, Regional Office, Department of Collegiate Education. The essence of this representation revolves around the plea for re-fixation of his salary for the duration commencing from his date of appointment date till 2007. However, this plea is rejected through an endorsement dated 20.06.2018 as per Annexure-A, citing a precondition embedded in the Government Order.
7. If these significant details are taken into
consideration and having regard to the fact that petitioner in compliance with clause 9 executed a mandated undertaking, thus aligning himself with the stipulations laid down by the Government Order, cannot be permitted to rake up the issue of re-fixation of salary for the unaided period. The petitioner, by executing an undertaking essentially acknowledges the conditions imposed by the Government order and renouncing any claims to benefits accruing from the services rendered during the unaided period. This act can be construed as a voluntary acceptance of terms and conditions set forth by the Government and the Institution, thereby signifying the settlement of the issues relating to petitioner’s salary for the unaided period. This undertaking serve as a binding commitment and therefore, such an unequivocal acknowledgment and the undertaking given by the petitioner act as a significant bar to subsequently asserting a claim for re-fixation of pay scale for the said period.
8. This Court is also more than satisfied that this
act of giving an undertaking by petitioner was not merely perfunctory to constitute a deliberate and informed choice on the part of the petitioner. By doing so, the petitioner unequivocally accepted the conditions imposed by the Government Order, including stipulation that service rendered during the unaided period could not be considered for salary re-fixation.
9. This Court has also taken cognizance of the
settlement arrived between respondent No.5-Institution and petitioner relating to salary disparity of lecturers in unaided college and Government lecturers. It would be useful for this Court to cull the relevant paragraphs. The same reads as under: “6. A joint memo signed by both the parties and their respective Advocates is filed. The same reads as under: “JOINT MEMO The appellants and the respondents shown above in the writ appeals respectfully submit as follows;
1. It is submitted that the above said parties seek
leave of this Hon'ble Court to report settlement arrived at between them on the following mutually agreed terms and pray to dispose of the pending writ petition Nos.6017/06, 6019/06, learned Single Judge.
2. It is submitted that the appellants are
agreeable to fix the Government scale of pay and allowances admissible to corresponding posts of the above respondents from May 1992 to June 2007 and agreeable to pay the current salary to the above said respondents from 1.6.2007 onwards only except to Sri N S Gopinath (respondent No. 1 in W.A. 1631/06 and respondent No.1 in W.P.6024/06) and who is not in service since November, 2002.
3. The aforesaid respondents are also agreeable to the said terms and after having understood the same have signed the present joint memo.
4. It is submitted that the appellant is also
agreeable to pay 50% of the total arrears of different of salary from 13.6.1992 to 30.5.2007 as per the details of calculations filed a/w this joint memo, for which the aforesaid respondents are also agreed in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the appellants and the aforesaid respondents, in the interest of both parties.
5. It is submitted that the arrears of difference of
salary payable are spread over from 13.6.1992 to 30.6.2007 for the purpose of assessing income- tax. In the regard the agreed calculation sheet i.e. document No.I which was also verified and finalized by the aforesaid respondents is produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court and marked as document No.I and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the said calculation sheet and after agreeing to the same both the appellants and the respondents have put their signature to this joint memo.
Wherefore the appellants and the aforesaid respondents respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the contents of the aforesaid joint memo and dispose of the aforesaid writ appeals and also the writ petitions pending before the learned Single Judge and also delete writ appeal No.1631/06 from the aforesaid connected writ appeals, in the interest of justice and equity."
7. Except respondent No. 1 in W.A.No.1637/2006 - Sri K N Shivaswamy, all other respondents are present before Court. On behalf of the appellants and the aforesaid
respondent, learned Advocates have signed on authorisation. The respondents present before the court and admit the execution of joint memo and the terms and conditions contained therein. The joint memo is placed on record.
8. Payment to be made by the appellants in terms of joint
memo is specified in Annexure-I to the joint memo. The same is part and parcel of the joint memo. Payment to be made by the appellants to the respondents in terms of joint memo is spread over for the period from 1992 to
2007. Though it is not agreed within which period the
payment is to be made by the appellants to the respondents, we direct the appellants to pay 50% of the amount agreed in terms of joint memo within a period of one month from today. The balance 50% of the amount is to be paid within two months thereof.
9. In terms of the joint memo, these writ appeals are disposed off.”
10. The settlement reached before the Division
Bench of this Court further solidifies the position of the petitioner vis-à-vis his salary entitlements. The settlement, which culminated in the petitioner receiving 50% of the salary for the period from 1992 to 2007 and a full pay scale at par with Government Lecturers from 2007 to 2015 till Institution was admitted to grant-in-aid, serves as a testament to the finality of resolution of disputes pertaining to petitioner’s salary. These significant details clearly demonstrate that petitioner has already been adequately compensated for the services rendered during the unaided period, thereby foreclosing any further claims or entitlements in this regard.
11. In synthesizing these elements, it becomes
abundantly clear that petitioner’s claim for re-fixation of pay scale is devoid of merit. The settlement not only reaffirms the petitioner’s acceptance of the terms but also signifies a final resolution of the disputes pertaining to petitioner’s salary relating to non-grant period.
12. In the light of these significant details, the
impugned endorsement dated 20.06.2018 as per Annexure- A issued by respondent No.3 declining petitioner’s request for re-fixation of salary, is found to be in strict conformity with the Government Order dated 26.08.2015. The petitioner’s voluntary undertaking and subsequent settlement between the management and petitioner in W.A.No.1629/2006 effectively negate any residuary claims for re-fixation of pay scale for the services rendered during the unaided period. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A stands vindicated and is found in consonance with the extant legal provisions and the commitment voluntarily undertaken by the petitioner.
13. In conclusion, the petitioner’s claim for re-
fixation of pay scale is hereby dismissed upholding the validity and applicability of the Government Order dated 26.08.2015 as per Annexure-B and legal undertaking voluntarily entered into by the petitioner.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE CA