RAJU A Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Nos.2 and 3 are working as Head Master, petitioner No.4 is working as PE Teacher and petitioner Nos.1, 5 and 6 are working as Assistant teacher, in a Private Aided Management. 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 12.02.2014, to direct the 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 were admitted to grant -in -aid i.e., for the purpose of computing the pay scale, seniority and other consequential service benefits.

(2.) SRI G.M. Chandrashekar, 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 been allowed and the writ appeals and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government having been dismissed, as is evident from Annexure -E, the respondents have an obligation to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. He submitted that, since respondent No.1 has not extended the said benefits to the petitioners, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) PERUSED the writ record.