Mahantesh and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

B. Veerappa, J—Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 9.

It is the case of the petitioners that they are all working as Assistant Librarians under the various private aided schools and Pre-University colleges and their posts are admitted to grant by the Government and they are the members of the Karnataka State High Schools and Pre-University colleges Librarians Association.

The 1st respondent-State Government has made clarification in respect of pay between Librarians working in Government run Schools and colleges on one hand and aided employees on the other hand. The said Association filed a writ petition before Prl. Bench at Bengaluru in W.P. No. 11257/1997 seeking direction to the respondents therein to consider representation with regard to fixation of pay as in case of Library Assistants working in Department of Public and other Government Institutions, which came to be allowed on 10.04.2000. It is the further case of the petitioners that similar persons like that of the petitioners had also filed W.P. No. 6895/2001 before this Court challenging the endorsement dated 06.12.2000 rejecting their claim and the said writ petition was allowed and remanded to the 1st respondent State Government for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law and keeping in view the observation made by this Court during the course of the order and pass orders within a period of six months. Thereafter, the Sate Government granted the relief as per Annexure-C to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners-Association made representation on 15.10.2000 requesting to extend the benefit of pay parity but the same was not considered. Therefore, they have filed Writ Petition No. 66748/2012 and this Court after hearing, dismissed the writ petition on 28.01.2013 only on the ground that they have not made representations in their individual capacity. However, liberty was reserved to approach the respondents for the relief, if any, in accordance with law.

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, all the petitioners have made individual representation on 09.03.2015 to the Block Education Officer to consider and pass orders. The Block Education Officer, by his impugned order dated 12.03.2015, without considering the representations on merits, as per Annexures F1 to F9, has rejected their claim on the ground that this Court in W.P. No. 66748/2012 and connected matters has rejected the claim on 28.01.2013. Therefore, no further action can be taken by the Department with regard to their service. Against the said order, the present writ petitions are filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

Smt. Rekha Patil, learned Counsel appearing for Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath has contended the impugned endorsement/order passed by respondent Nos. 5 to 9 is not a speaking order and the same is contrary to the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 66748/2012 and this Court has not rejected the claim in toto. While disposing of the petition, liberty was given to all the petitioners to approach the respondents by individual representations. Accordingly, the individual representations were made and by interpreting the order passed by this Court, the respondents No. 5 to 7 has rejected, which is against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the law and the same was liable to be quashed and she also contended that the relief of pay parity benefit has been extended to the similarly situated persons like the petitioners as per Annexure-C. The said benefit has to be extended by the respondents by considering the representations in accordance with law. The same has not been done. Therefore, she contended that all the petitions are liable to be allowed.

Per contra, Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani, learned AGA has fairly submitted that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 cannot be sustained in view of liberty given by this Court in W.P. No. 66748/2007. The petitioners are not entitled any relief before this Court since the 1st benefit was given as long back as on 11.10.2006. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

It is not in dispute that all the petitioners who are working as Assistant Librarians in various private aided schools and Pre-University Colleges have been appointed by the State Government and it is also not in dispute that similarly situated persons like the petitioners have been extended the benefit of pay parity as per Annexure-C by the State Government and based on the said benefit granted by the Court, the petitioners have approached this Court and it is also not in dispute that the petitioners approached this Court in W.P. No. 66748/2012 and this Court by its order dated 28.01.2013 rejected their claim only on the ground that the petitioners have not submitted their representations in their individual capacity. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities by individual representations.

Accordingly, all the petitioners have made individual representations to the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 on 10.02.2015 and on different dates and all the representations made within the month of March 2015 and the impugned order is passed in the month of February, March and April 2015 and there is no delay on the part of the petitioners to approach this Court as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents.

The State Government being the custodian of all the citizens, it has to consider their request by giving the relief equally and there cannot any discrimination between the persons similarly situated while granting benefit Annexure-C to the similarly situated. Hence, they cannot discriminate to the present petitioners and the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is not a speaking order and contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 66748/2012. Therefore, they are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders/endorsements issued as per Annexures-F, F1 to F9 are quashed and the matters are remanded to respondent Nos. 5 to 9 to reconsider the representations of the petitioners in accordance with Annexure-C and pass orders in accordance with law on merits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is relevant to state at this stage that, the Block Education Officer who is the competent authority to consider the representation cannot interpret the order passed by this Court according to his own whims and fancies and while exercising his power he should apply his mind and cannot discriminate the petitioners in pursuance of the relief granted as per Annexure-C and he should not issue the endorsement in this nature. It amounts to disobedience of the order passed by this Court. In view of the same, the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 shall pass orders without prejudice to the case of the petitioners.

Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of.