Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 890 (KAR)

Shyamalatha Singh v. State of Karnataka

2012-10-11

B.V.NAGARATHNA, VIKRAMAJIT SEN

body2012
Judgment : Vikramajit Sen, CJ. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Rightly, there is no opposition to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Additional document Annexure "Q" is also taken on record. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner/appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 25/07/1990 and as per letter dated 25/01/1991 against a permanent post in which a vacancy had arisen due to resignation. The said letter dated 25/01/1991 also approves the appointment with effect from the said date. As a consequence, unless the Teacher fails to discharge her duties, or if transferred to another Institution, fails to report for duty to that Institution, it is the responsibility of the State to pay salaries. The Commissioner, Public Instructions Department, Bangalore, has articulated this very position in the letter dated 30/09/2009 (Annexure "Q"), authored by the Under Secretary, Education Department, attached to the Commissioner, Public Instructions Department, in which, it has been directed "to readjust the placement of the additional teachers to the private aided educational institutions and until the placements are adjusted accordingly, the salary of such teachers may not be stopped." 3. Learned AGA states that for the period from 01/07/2001 to 14/11/2005, ostensibly, due to fall in the number of students and thereafter, due to change in the Student Teacher ratio, only two teachers were justified in the Institution, whereas, the petitioner was the third Teacher. It is not the case of the Government that they had issued transfer orders pertaining to the petitioner to some other Institution. Had this been the position that obtained and if the Teacher concerned did not report for duty at the indicated Institution, liability of the State for payment of salaries would have been temporarily halted. This is not the case in hand, as the petitioner has continued to teach in the Institution where her appointment was approved not only from 25/01/1991 but up to and including the period from 01/07/2001 to 14/11/2005. She is therefore entitled to her salary. Respondent No.5 is a Private Aided Educational Institution i.e., which is deriving 100% salary grant from the State Government. Therefore, it matters little in this case, whether respondent No.5 is directly discharging the State's obligation to pay salaries to its Teachers, including the petitioner or whether the State does it by itself. She is therefore entitled to her salary. Respondent No.5 is a Private Aided Educational Institution i.e., which is deriving 100% salary grant from the State Government. Therefore, it matters little in this case, whether respondent No.5 is directly discharging the State's obligation to pay salaries to its Teachers, including the petitioner or whether the State does it by itself. The case may be appreciably different where an Institution employs a Teacher without the approval of the Government. In such a case, the Government may be heard to argue that it should not have made liable for the payment of salary, and that liability should be fastened on the Institution which engaged her service. As we have already noted, these are not the circumstances which exist before us. The learned Single Judge has, in the impugned order dated 01/03/2011 also came to similar conclusion but has not issued a direction to any of the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner. 4. The very fact that the petitioner was liable to be transferred from one Institution to another on the prerogative and decision of the Government makes it clear that it is the Government's obligation to pay the salary. This is exactly what transpires from 15/11/2005 up to 30/12/2008 and thereafter, when the petitioner reported for duty, as per the instructions of the Government to another Institution i.e., Respondent No.7. Thankfully, the petitioner is receiving the salary with effect from 30/12/2008. 5. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she should not be forced from pillar to post. If there has been any irregularity committed by any particular Educational Institution, such as either Respondent No.5 or Respondent No.7 in this case, that matter has to be resolved by the Government with reference to the Institution concerned and not the teacher who has diligently discharged the duties. It is not denied that another teacher namely, Jayapadma V.S., Assistant Teacher, who is identically placed has been paid her salary. 6. It is under these circumstances, that we allow the appeal and direct Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pay the salary of the petitioner/appellant with effect from 01/07/2001 up to 30/12/2008, within 60 days from today. The said respondents shall also pay interest on the above dues calculated at 6% [12% interest has been claimed in the petition] with yearly rests. It is under these circumstances, that we allow the appeal and direct Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pay the salary of the petitioner/appellant with effect from 01/07/2001 up to 30/12/2008, within 60 days from today. The said respondents shall also pay interest on the above dues calculated at 6% [12% interest has been claimed in the petition] with yearly rests. If the dues are not paid within 30 days from today, interest shall stand escalated from 6% p.a. to 8% p.a. 7. Learned AGA submits that according to his instructions, payment of salary from 15/11/2005 to 30/12/2008 has been duly discharged to petitioner. If a legal receipt is available, these payments may not be made for the second time. 8. Since the appeal has been filed belatedly and since rightly, there has been no opposition, delay being condoned, we desist from imposing costs to the respondents.