NARAYANASWAMY, SON OF SRI. CHIKKANNA, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, MANASA KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION) AND OTHERS@RESPOND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) THE facts are as follows: The Petitioner had passed his SSLC and after passing the course examination in Physical education had joined the services of the seventh Respondent -school as a Physical Education teacher as per an order of appointment issued to him with effect from 3.1.1995. The management of the school known as Manasa Kannada Higher Primary School also manages yet another institution known as Manasa Kannada High School. This is stated only to clarify that the school was under the management of one Mathrudevo Education Society and thereafter the management was transferred to the present Respondent -6 and the said school was an aided institution having been admitted to grant -in -aid sanctioned by the Government of Karnataka during the year 1992. Since it was admitted to grant much prior to the Petitioner having joined the services he was entitled to receive regular pay scale, allowance, attached to the post of Physical Education teacher from the date of his appointment. But, however since the Respondent had to formally approve his appointment, he was not paid the regular pay -scale and the allowances. The Petitioner had submitted his application for seeking such appointment as against the advertisement issued by the sixth Respondent trust calling for application and he was thereafter selected and appointed in the said post. The management sent the proposals to the Government for approval of his appointment. It was only after protracted correspondence with the Government of Karnataka, by its letter dated 3.3.2003 approved the appointment, of the Petitioner and accordingly directions were issued or appointment of the Petitioner as a Physical Education Teacher and for grant of regular pay scale and allowances with effect from the date of his initial appointment. The management of the school submitted the necessary bili for sanction and counter signature for grant of regular pay scale and allowances attached to it. However, the Block Education Officer sought certain clarification from the Deputy Director of Public Instructions who in turn had furnished the details sought for by the Block Education Officer and the said officer has by his letter dated 26.11.2003 addressed to the seventh Respondent herein the head master of the school who had returned the advance salary bill stating that since the Petitioner was appointed with effect date 26.4.2003, he was not entitled to arrears of pay and allowances from the date of his appointment namely, 3.1.1995 it is this denial of payment of arrears of salary with effect from the date of his appointment which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, in support of the statement of objections filed, would submit that at best, the appointment having been approved with effect from 2003, it is only for the purpose of computing seniority, scale of pay, pension and that there can be a notional recognition of the scale of pay of the Petitioner from the date of his initial appointment and not from the date of actual approval of the appointment of the Petitioner. The payment of arrears by the State, in the manner contended by the Petitioner, would result in a drain on the finances of the State and if at all, it is the management which would have to meet the bill insofar as the arrears of salary are concerned and therefore, would submit that the Petitioner has not made out a case for grant of any such benefit, retrospectively, and die Petitioner having been granted approval of his appointment with effect from 2003 would confer substantial benefit on the Petitioner and therefore would submit that there is no warrant for interference.