BHARATIYA SAMSKRITHI VIDYA PEETA BANGALORE Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 5th respondent is an employee of the Bharatiya Samskrithi Vidya peeta which is running a primary school in which this respondent is working as teacher. The school was receiving Grant-in-Aid from the state Government which was subsequently withdrawn because the management had allegedly violated some of the conditions on which the grant had been sanctioned. After the withdrawal of the Grant-in-Aid the management did not pay the salary to the 5th respondent at par with the salary of a Government school teacher. She then approached the state Government by filing a petition under Section 133 of the karnataka Education Act, 1983. That petition was allowed by an order dated 8th February, 2000 and a direction was issued to the Government to pay salary to the 5th respondent at par with the salary of government school teachers. Feeling aggrieved by this order the management filed Writ Petition No. 25112 of 2000 in this Court. That writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 31st July, 2000 with a direction to the management to pay the salary to the 5th respondent equivalent to that of a teacher in a Government school. It is against this order that the present writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and are of the view that there is no merit in the writ appeal. Admittedly, the appellant before us is running a private primary school which is a recognised institution which was initially receiving Grant-in-Aid. As already observed, the Grant-in-Aid was withdrawn because the management had allegedly violated some of the conditions on which it had been sanctioned. Be that as it may, the management is running a private primary school which is recognised and is therefore governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978. Rule 5 of these Rules reads as under:

(3.) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision leaves no room for doubt that an employee of a private institution has to be paid the scale of pay which is not lower than the scale of an employee of a corresponding post in the Government Educational Institution. It is thus clear that a teacher in a private institution has to be given the scale of pay which is given to a teacher in a Government school. This is precisely what the State Government directed which direction was upheld by the learned Single Judge. No fault can thus be found with the order under appeal.