G.U. GURUSWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are working as Lecturers in Vidyaranya Pre -University College, Kondli Cross, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District -572 211. 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 29.11.2013, to direct the respondents to reckon and count the past service rendered fry the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment up to the date of approval of their appointment with aid respectively for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority, increments, including TBA, pensionary benefits and other consequential service benefits.

(2.) SRI C.S. Madhu, 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 Petitions filed by the Government having been dismissed, as is evident from Annexures -N, P and Q, the respondents have an obligation to extend the same benefits 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.

(3.) THERE is an averment that the petitioners made demand vide Annexures -F and G with the respondents, to perform the legal duty. Submission cannot be accepted, since Annexures -F and G are not by the petitioners but by a body. Petitioners ought to have made the demand in writing, so that the authority can secure the relevant records and take decision in the matter. Since the petitioners have not made individual demand with the respondents, by furnishing the full particulars with regard to the claims made in these writ petitions, the writ petitions for issue of writ of mandamus cannot be entertained.