Shrishailappa Tammannappa Maigur vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Heard Sri. Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Sunitha J. Sequeira, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Sri. Abhishek Barigidad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for respondent No.5-Institution.

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

The petitioner was appointed as a Demonstrator in Physics Department with the respondent No.5 on 14.07.1968 and he has rendered 34 years of service in the College and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2003. The State Government on 09.05.2002, passed a Government Order vide Annexure-A, extending benefit of one stagnation increment in respect of the Teachers who have served in the same post for a period of 20 years without any promotion. Subsequently, the Government, by means of Annexure-B by way of Corrigendum/Amendment dated 27.12.2012, caused an amendment to the Order dated 09.05.2002, extending the benefit (supra) even in respect of non-teaching staff of an Aided Institution. A similarly situated person who worked as a Typist and retired from the Institution has been granted the increment in terms of Annexure-B, towards time bound for 25 and 30 years.

Sri. Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view afore, the same benefit may be extended to the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 may be directed to consider his representation dated 21.07.2016 and extend the additional increments and re-fixation of service benefits in terms of Corrigendum/Amendment dated 27.12.2012, extending the benefit granted under Annexure-A dated 09.05.2002 in respect of non-teaching staff as per the representation at Annexure-D, dated 21.07.2016.

Learned counsel Sri. Rajashekhar Burji, further submits that though the representation was submitted way back in the year 2016 and this petition filed in 2018, no action has been taken in that regard, to extend the benefit in terms of the Corrigendum/Amendment dated 27.12.2012.

Smt. Sunitha J. Sequeira, learned AGA submits that the Government has not received any proposal from the concerned College in respect of granting of benefit as per the Amendment dated 27.12.2012. She further submits that if the proposal is sent by respondent No.5-College, the same would be considered in accordance with law, in terms of the Notification and the benefits sought be extended.

Sri. Abhishek Barigidad, learned counsel submits that if a reasonable time is granted, the proposal as sought by the petitioner in terms of Annexure-D on the basis of Amendment caused to the original Government Order dated 09.05.2002, extending the benefit to the non-stream staff, would be sent to the Government for consideration.

Having considered the rival submission, this Court noticed that the petitioner, a septuagenarian (i.e., 73 years), was running pillar to post during his lifetime, in getting his lawful claims since the year 2016, though this petition is filed in 2018, nine years lapsed by now, however no action has been taken as contemplated in Annexure-B. This apathy on the part of the all the respondents is unsustainable besides illegal. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to pass the following: