LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-194

REVANASIDDAPPA B.M. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On March 11, 2014
Revanasiddappa B.M Appellant
V/S
State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, The Commissioner, Department of Primary Education, The Deputy Director of Public Instructions Administration, Department of Public Instructions and The Block Education Officer, Honnali Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is working as Head Master, petitioner Nos. 2, 4 to 7 are working as Assistant Teachers, petitioner No. 3 is working as P.E. Teacher, petitioner No. 8 is working as Craft Teacher and petitioner No. 9 is working as SDA, in Shree Saraswathi Rural High School, Yarala Bannikodu, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District. According to the petitioners, their appointments were approved by respondent No. 1. While approving the appointment, a condition having been imposed that the past service rendered from the date of appointment till the appointee was admitted for salary grant will be counted only for the purpose of leave and pension and thereby denied the notional annual increments, these writ petitions were filed on 23.01.2014, to direct respondents to take into account the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial entry i.e., from the date of appointment, instead of from the date of their posts being admitted to grant -in -aid for the purpose of computing the pay scale, seniority, increment and other consequential service benefits. Sri G.B. Maruthi, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the writ petitions filed by some of the Teachers working in different institutions, seeking to reckon their services from the date of their initial appointments up to the date of approval for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority and all other benefits having allowed and the writ appeals and the Special Leave V Petitions filed by the Government having been dismissed, as is evident from Annexure - C, the respondents have an obligation to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. He submitted that, since the respondent No. 1 has not extended the said benefits to the petitioners, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) PERUSED the writ record.

(3.) IN A. Prabhakara Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka and others, : 1980 (1) KLJ 456, with regard to issuance of writ of mandamus to the authorities, it has been held as follows: