Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 145 (KAR)

LINGANNA K. NAYAK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2006-02-07

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2006
( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition by as many as 67 persons who claim to be working as teachers in private aided educational institutions and appears had represented to the Government to extend them the benefit of two increments for having qualified or passed in a Departmental examination in kannada and would further claim that they had not been extended such benefit though they passed examination quite sometime back and according to the petitioners some having passed them even from the years 1982 to 1987 till which time a rule extending such benefit was in vogue but which had been later discontinued. ( 2 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Chandrakanth Goulay, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners in a representative capacity had appealed to the respondent State to extend the benefit of granting two increments to the petitioners as some other persons similarly situated had approached this Court and this Court had issued positive orders in many such cases illustrative of which is the order dated 22nd March 2005 passed in W. P. No. 50658/2003 and connected cases and that the endorsement issued by the respondent dated 05. 07. 2005, copy at annexure-G, declining to extend such benefit on the representation of the petitioners is contrary to the view taken by this Court in the writ petition referred to above and many other similar petitions and that, in fact, many more writ petitions are still pending on the very case. One such being W. P. No. 25688/2005. ( 3 ) THE further submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the-endorsement being issued by an officer of the State and the petitioners being employees of private aided institutions, writ petitioners have no other remedy other than to approach this Court. Learned counsel submits that the endorsement is clearly in violation of the directions that had been issued by this Court in similar matters and, therefore it has to be necessarily quashed. ( 4 ) THE writ petition is by numerous persons claiming to be teachers of private aided educational institutions. A benefit that is being claimed is a benefit they would have got during the years 1982 to 1987. It is also submitted that the very rule extending such a benefit had been discontinued from the year 1987. ( 4 ) THE writ petition is by numerous persons claiming to be teachers of private aided educational institutions. A benefit that is being claimed is a benefit they would have got during the years 1982 to 1987. It is also submitted that the very rule extending such a benefit had been discontinued from the year 1987. It is also submitted that such a benefit is not available for those teachers who perhaps have qualified in the departmental examination after 1987. The question of the petitioners is that because they had qualified during the period when the rule was in vogue, they are entitled for the same and even as understood by the Government as per, the subsequent circulars issued for clarifications etc. ( 5 ) THE endorsement issued on the face of it quotes that the benefit which is sought to be extended is a benefit which is not otherwise provided to and which is sought to be a benefit to be treated on par with the Government employees. The endorsement obviously gives the impression that it is not an entitlement which the petitioners had by themselves but by comparison with the Government Employees for extension of the benefit. Denial of the benefit is on the premise that the Supreme Court has taken a view that the employees in private aided institutions did not stand on par with the Government employees and it is not as though that any benefit that is extended to the Government Employees can automatically be claimed by the employees in private aided institutions and if the Government having regard to its financial position etc. , has declined to extend such a benefit, particularly, which is sought for at this point of time. I am of the view that no exception can be taken to the endorsement issued by the government. The decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion do not lay down any principle of law or has any discernible ratio, to elevate the decisions to status of a binding precedent, required to be followed in later similar cases. ( 6 ) APART from this, what I find essentially is that the cause of the petitioners is a stale cause. Even assuming that they had any tight over it, the benefit is one which the petitioners could have earned if at all during the years 1982 to 1987. ( 6 ) APART from this, what I find essentially is that the cause of the petitioners is a stale cause. Even assuming that they had any tight over it, the benefit is one which the petitioners could have earned if at all during the years 1982 to 1987. ( 7 ) THE petition now filed in the year 2005 for seeking such a benefit is too far in the point of time and is not a worthy cause for a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming that the petitioners had any right etc. , the petition is not maintainable due to laches. ( 8 ) NO occasion for this Court to examine such cause of the petitioners to enforce such benefits. Writ Petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .