R.B. MALIHALLI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These intra-court writ appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, all these appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellants are all employees of the respondent-Gogte Institute of Technology, run by the Karnataka Law Society. The appellants were working as Professors, Assistant Professors, Helpers, Peons, etc., but their grievance in common is that the age of superannuation is maintained at 58 years and they are forced to retire from service accordingly. Their contention in common before the learned Single Judge was that the Institution is governed by the regulations of the All India Council For Technical Education ('AICTE' for short) and in terms of the regulations of AICTE, more particularly, the AICTE (Pay scales and Service Conditions) Regulations, 2010, the age of superannuation should be 65 years. Reliance was also placed on a Government Order dtd. 7/3/2011 issued by the Government of Karnataka, consequent to the revision of pay scales and service conditions following the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and the regulations of the AICTE.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the respondent- Institution that the employees of the institution are governed by the rules and regulations of the Karnataka Law Society and the appellants herein were appointed to the respective posts in terms of the rules and regulations of the Karnataka Law Society. It was contended that in the Government Order dtd. 7/3/2011 issued by the Government of Karnataka, Department of Higher Education, it was made clear that the age of retirement was made applicable to Colleges owned by the State Universities, Colleges established by the Government and Private Aided Engineering colleges only. It was contended that the respondent-Institution is not an aided institution and therefore, the Government Order dtd. 7/3/2011 is not applicable to the respondent-Institution, more so, in respect of the age of superannuation. It was admitted during the course of the arguments that the management of the Karnataka Law Society had passed a Board Resolution dtd. 22/1/2011 resolving to accept the revised pay scales as per the AICTE 6th Pay Commission recommendation (excluding allowances) w.e.f. 1/1/2010. However, it was contended that the management of the respondent- Institution did not accept the recommendation, either of the AICTE or the State Government, in the matter of enhancement of age of superannuation. The representations given by the appellants/writ petitioners were rejected by the respondent- Institution. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of the respondent-Institution and dismissed the writ petitions.