Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 266 (KAR)

University of Mysore v. H. T. Krishnegowda

2018-02-26

DINESH MAHESHWARI, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

body2018
JUDGMENT : The respondents (petitioners in writ petitions) had approached the learned Single Judge seeking for a direction that the order No.ET-2-174/1996-97 dated 18.08.2016 of the Appellant University (respondent No.1 in the writ petition) ought to be implemented and consequently, the pensionary benefits to the respondents based on their last pay drawn in 2012 be extended till the completion of 62 years of age. The details of respondents’ service is as follows: Respondent No.1 Dr. H.T. Krishnegowda Deputy Editor in Kuvempu Institute of Kannada Studies, University of Mysore. Respondent No.2 Dr. Y.C. Banumathi Research Assistant Grade-1 in Kuvempu Institute of Kannada Studies, University of Mysore. Respondent No.3 Sri S.R. Sudarshana Assistant Director in “Prasaranga” University of Mysore. Respondent No.4 Sri B.V. Sridhar Assistant Editor in Kuvempu Institute of Kannada Studies, University of Mysore. 2. By virtue of the Statute, viz., ‘University of Mysore Statutes Relating to Up-gradation of Certain Academic Posts, 2009’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Statute’ for short), which came into effect from 30.01.2012, the posts held by the respondents were upgraded and re-designated. The Statute specifically provided that the pay fixation and age of retirement for the incumbents after 30th January 2012 would be in accordance with University Grants Commission (UGC) norms. The appellant University, by its orders, permitted the respondents to continue in service fixing the age of retirement at 62 years by its various orders. The said orders of the University were produced as Annexures-B, C, D, E, F and G in the writ petitions. 3. Contrary to the Statute, the appellant University, by its order, dated 24.02.2014 treated the service rendered by respondents beyond the age of 60 years as re-employment and sanctioned the pensionary benefits only for the services rendered upto the age of 60 years. 4. As regards the respondent No.4, though initially the above mentioned order dated 24.02.2014 was challenged by filing W.P.No.36294/2014, in view of the resolution of Syndicate dated 18.08.2016 and the meeting of the University on 07.02.2017, treating the said respondent to have been in service till the age of 62 years and directing pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn in 2012, the writ petition came to be withdrawn. Consequent thereto, the respondent No.4 submitted a representation to the University seeking for the relief of disbursement of pension, which however remained unanswered. 5. Consequent thereto, the respondent No.4 submitted a representation to the University seeking for the relief of disbursement of pension, which however remained unanswered. 5. The other respondents being denied of pensionary benefits for their service between the age of 60 to 62 years which they were otherwise entitled to as per the resolution of Syndicate on 18.08.2016 and order of the University on 07.02.2017, filed a writ seeking for the relief as detailed above. 6. The University contended that the Statute was not applicable to the respondents and denied them of pensionary benefits upto the age of 62 years until clarification from the Government as regards its applicability was received. The said objections were found to be untenable and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions granting pensionary benefits to the respondents with the following observations: “13. For the reasons stated above, this petition is hereby allowed. The respondent – University is directed to implement the resolution dated 18.08.2016 passed by the Syndicate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the petitioners shall be free to file a contempt petition against the University for the intentional and willful disobedience of the order.” 7. The said order of the learned Single Judge is now challenged in these appeals. The contentions that are seriously urged are: (i) that the respondents are non-teaching staff, who do not come within the definition of ‘Teachers’ and hence, the age of retirement would be 60 years and not 62 years, which was not taken note of. (ii) the order of the University dated 18.08.2016 was contrary to UGC norms and the Karnataka State University Act, 2000 and as the appellant had sought for clarification from the State Government and in the absence of receipt of any clarification, the said order was not implementable. (iii) the respondents were extended the pay scales for their service between 60 years and 62 years erroneously. Having noticed the said mistake, the impugned order was passed to correct the said mistake. 8. It is, however, noticed that the University is seeking to wriggle itself from its own Statute by virtue of which, the upgradation of respondents’ posts was affected by equating them with the teaching positions. Having noticed the said mistake, the impugned order was passed to correct the said mistake. 8. It is, however, noticed that the University is seeking to wriggle itself from its own Statute by virtue of which, the upgradation of respondents’ posts was affected by equating them with the teaching positions. In the light of the Statute dated 22.02.2012, relied upon in extending pensionary benefits to the respondents till the age of 62 years and the subsequent affirmation by the Syndicate of the University on 07.02.2017 and granting extension of service to the respondents upto the age of 62 years, the University is estopped from now repudiating the validity of Statute on the pretext that the previous decisions including the Statute were erroneous and required reconsideration. It is pertinent to note that though the earlier Statute was sought to be withdrawn, the said action could not prejudice the rights that had accrued to the respondents during the subsistence of the Statute as has been clarified by Annexure-L dated 24.11.2016. The contention of the University that the University Statute applied only to teaching staff and cannot be extended to non-teaching staff is also not tenable, as consciously the University Statute extended the benefits of pension as per UGC norms specifically to non-teaching staff as well, which is apparent from a plain reading of the Statute. The order of the University dated 24.02.2014 cannot come to its aid, as clearly on two occasions, viz., on 18.08.2016 and subsequently on 07.02.2017, the University has expressly taken the stand that respondents were entitled to the pensionary benefits upto the age of 62 years. Merely seeking to describe the service of the respondents between 60 to 62 years as re-employment which is sought to be done ex post facto will not nullify the effect of the earlier orders at Annexure-B, C, D, E, F and G, by virtue of which, the service of the petitioners was extended upto 62 years by relying on the University Statute published on 22.02.2012, as per Annexure-A of the writ petitions. 9. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions, which calls for no interference. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 10. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2018 filed seeking stay of the operation of impugned order is disposed of as redundant.