AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjula Chellur, CJ.
Some of the admitted facts, to understand the real question of controversy, are necessarily to be indicated. The first appellant institution had Engineering and non Engineering Colleges. Prior to 2006 a decision was taken to consolidate administration and management of all the institutions, i.e., Engineering and non Engineering institutions. At this point of time, certain options were given to opt out to be posted in the Engineering Colleges. It is not in dispute that once both the writ petitioners along with one another Principal, Smt. Bindu. D approached this Court, which came to be considered under Exhibit P1 dated 5.10.2009. Ultimately, said Writ Petition came to be disposed of with a direction that IHRD shall invite fresh applications and consider the case of the petitioners also subject to their academic qualifications and other requirements, if the petitioners opt for such transfer. Two months'' time was also granted to comply with such direction. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of said direction, re-options were sought and the writ petitioners also opted out for such option. They were also promoted as per Exhibit P2 dated 21.12.2010. However, their salary in the promotional post was not fixed from 21.12.2010 till date, therefore, they approached the learned Single Judge contending that similarly placed persons and also the persons, juniors to them, who gave reoption and were promoted, are getting salary in the post to which they were promoted and these writ petitioners were not given any such promotion. The only defence put forth by the appellant institution is that a Vigilance enquiry is pending against the Director for all the acts and deeds done by him between 2006 and 2011. The promotions granted to the petitioner as also the permission granted to exercise option was also under scrutiny. We cannot ignore the fact that almost 16 persons including the juniors to the petitioners were promoted on submission of reoption and all of them are getting salaries after refixation of their salary in the promotional post. We fail to understand why these two petitioners are segregated from others and they are not given any benefit and they are driven to approach this Court. The learned Single Judge, after considering the factual situation of the appellant institution exercising discrimination between these two petitioners and other similarly placed persons including juniors to the petitioners, directed the appellant institution to take immediate steps for fixation of pay of the petitioners with effect from the concerned joining dates of the petitioners, i.e., 24.10.2010 and 22.10.2010 and release the benefits flowing out of such exercise and time limit of three months was also given. Aggrieved by this, the appellants are before us contending that on account of pendency of the Vigilance enquiry, they are not able to fix and pay salaries to these two writ petitioners. So far as such benefit being extended to other similarly placed persons including the juniors of the petitioners, the only explanation forthcoming is that the then Director and the present Director are different. We are not concerned with the change in the administration or who is in charge of the institution. Whether other similarly placed persons are given such benefit or not has to be considered.
In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We also make it clear whatever would be the outcome of the Vigilance enquiry, it will affect not only the writ petitioners but also others depending upon the outcome of the Vigilance enquiry. At that stage, it is for the persons who are affected to get redressal of their remedies before proper forum. Anticipating future outcome of the Vigilance report, these two writ petitioners cannot be segregated and discriminated in the manner in which the appellants are opting.
With the above observations, we dispose of the Writ Appeal.