G. CHIDANANDAMURTHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the order dtd. 17/1/2019 (Annexure-K-1), rejecting the claim for granting Academic Grade Pay to the petitioner No.1 interalia sought for direction to the respondent-College to grant Academic Grade Pay to the petitioners from the date of their entitlement as recommended by their respective Colleges.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were working as part time Lecturers in the Composite Degree College, of respective respondent- colleges during the Academic Year 1993-94 and 1994-95. Thereafter, the petitioners have been absorbed into service as per the absorption Rules, namely, Karnataka Civil Services, (Absorption of persons working as Part Time Lecturers in Karnataka Education Department Services) (Department of Collegiate Education) (Special) Rules, 1996, vide Notification issued on 12/2/2004 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). It is stated that though the petitioners have been appointed to the Degree Colleges, however, as the Pre-University Colleges and Degree- Colleges were not bifurcated as on that day and there were no sufficient work load in the Degree Colleges and as such, these petitioners were posted to teach in Pre-University colleges, as per the State Pay scale. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the petitioners have acquired requisite qualification prescribed by the UGC and therefore, they are eligible to grant UGC Pay scale, in terms of the circular dtd. 29/10/2010. The grievance of the petitioners is that, though the petitioners were working in Pre- University Colleges, in view of bifurcation of Pre-University and Degree colleges, the Government had taken a decision to treat the Lectures, who were working in PU colleges, have been treated as Lectures in the Degree Colleges as those Lectures have possessed necessary certificates as per UGC guidelines. It is further stated in the writ petition that,

(3.) rd respondent, has recommended the case of some of the petitioners for drawing UGC pay scale, from the period they were teaching in the PU colleges, (Annexure-K). It is further contended that, the 3rd respondent, withdrawn the said recommendation produced at Annexure-K by issuing Annexure-K1 and as such, the 3rd has not forwarded the recommendation of the petitioners and the petitioners were not granted pay scales as sought for in the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard Sri. Janardhana G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.S.Nagaraja learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State.