L. PRASANNA KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, assailing the correctness of the impugned Order dated 05/06/2013 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application Nos. 4860, 4862, 4864 and 4867/2013 connected with other connected matters produced vide Annexure D, have presented these petitions. Further, petitioners have sought to direct the respondents to extend initial basic pay to the petitioners - Contract Engineers from the date of initial appointment as Contract Engineers and Junior Training Officers, on par with the Contract Teachers absorbed under and in terms of Annexure 'A1' A6', B1 to B4 and in view of the order and observation of the Tribunal in the order vide Annexure A4' made in Application No. 270/1993 dated 14/12/1994 and order dated 27/03/2007 in Application No. 6730/2001 C/w. Application Nos. 2676 to 2631/2003 and application Nos. 4011 to 4016/2003 produced vide Annexure 'A10' expeditiously.

(2.) THE brief facts are as under:

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel Smt. Shwetha Anand, appearing for the petitioners, at the outset is that, the Tribunal, has erred in declining to grant the relief sought in the application accepting the false affidavit filed by the respondents stating that as per the Notification dated 8.10.1999, the benefit cannot be extended even though the said notification has not been given effect to till date. She further submits that, the petitioners have been dragging from pillar to post, time and again when the respondents are extending the benefits to the other Contract employees of the other departments like Education Department and showing discrimination towards the petitioners without any justification and even though they have rendered services to the institution sincerely and honestly and therefore, she submitted that the respondents ought to have extended the said benefits to the petitioners in par with the others. But this aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered and the reasoning given in para -8 and the finding recorded in para -10 of the order impugned by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside at threshold. Further, she vehemently submitted that, now the Government has issued a communication dated 10.1.2014 vide Annexure -E extending the benefit to the teachers who are working on temporary basis and those who have served more than 20 years by modifying the notification dated 8.10.1999 bearing No. DPAR:12:SRE:97. Therefore, she submitted that, in the light of the communication dated 10.1.2014 vide Annexure -E bearing No ED.237.DGD.2013, the prayer sought by the petitioners may be allowed and appropriate direction may be issued to the respondents to extend the benefit in par with contract teachers/lecturers working in the Education department by allowing these petitions