KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. GURUPADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the defendants under Sec. 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 17/7/2023 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short 'First Appellate Court') in RA No.35/2022, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 8/4/2022 in OS No.110/2018 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, (for short 'Trial Court') decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

(3.) Facts of the case in nutshell are that, it is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant-educational institution, having been appointed as a Junior Technician on 2/8/1982 with salary of Rs.340.00 per month and thereafter, the salary was fixed as per the scale of Rs.340.0015-400-20-500-25-600-30-750-extension 25-800. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has joined his duties during 1982 on par with the salary of the Government Servant. It is further stated in the plaint that during the course of his service in the defendant-Society, the salary was paid as per the Government Servant and also he was entitled for other allowances, which is permissible to the State Government employees. It is also stated in the plaint that the State Government have been periodically enhanced the dearness allowance to its employees however, same was denied to the plaintiff by the defendant-Institution. It is also contended in the plaint that plaintiff had earned leave to his credit and same was surrender at the time of his retirement however, the said benefit of earned leave encashment was denied to the plaintiff by the defendant-Institution. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has been denied benefit of HRA and CCA on par with the State Government Employees. The plaintiff made a claim for arrears of aforementioned benefits and same was rejected by the defendant-Institution at the time of retirement of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has preferred OS No.110/2018 against the defendant-Institution for recovery of money as the plaintiff is entitled for difference of dearness allowance, house rent allowance, earned leave and city compensatory allowance on par with the Government employees.