(Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ.)
H.M. Bharathi ____________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Karnataka and Others ____________________ Respondent(s).
Appeal Nos. 3569-3570 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 489-490/2023), decided on March 19, 2026
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Manoj Misra, J.:—
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals impugn two orders of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru1 dated 15.04.2021 and 19.07.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No. 2852/2018 and Review Petition No. 406/2021 respectively.
FACTS
3. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 12521/2012 for quashing the order dated 30.01.2012, whereby University Grants Commission’s2 revised pay scale was denied to the appellant. The order dated 30.01.2012 stated that teaching staff who have not acquired the qualification prescribed by the UGC are not entitled to the benefit of UGC revised scheme unless they acquire NET/SLET/PhD, through course work, and not to those who had not acquired MPhil degree prior to 11.07.2009.
4. The appellant challenged denial of UGC scale, inter alia, on the ground that vide Government Order dated 15.11.1999 UGC scale was available, with effect from 01.01.1996, to all Lecturers working in aided institutions within the State of Karnataka. It was contended that the appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Sheshadripuram Evening College, Bengaluru on 02.07.1993. The said college was brought under grant in aid, vide Government Order dated 30.10.1995, with effect from 01.09.1995. Initially, the appellant was not provided grant-inaid scale, but later, vide order of the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Education, dated 22.05.2004, the same was allowed with effect from the date the institution was brought under grant-in-aid. Consequently, vide Government Order dated 28.04.2008, the appellant was admitted to grant-in-aid scale with effect from 01.09.1995.
5. It was also the case of the appellant that UGC pay scale was extended to Lecturers appointed on stopgap basis and, later, four Lecturers and one librarian in the college, wherein the appellant was appointed, were also extended UGC pay scale vide Government Order dated 17.03.2011; therefore, the appellant is entitled to UGC pay scale.
6. The writ court i.e., learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 20.06.2017, allowed the writ petition in the following terms:
“In the result, the petitioner succeeds and is entitled for extension of UGC pay scale as per Government Order 17th March 2011. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from today.”
7. After the order dated 20.06.2017 was passed, on an Interlocutory Application No. 1/2017, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.11.2017 directed certain corrections in the order dated 20.06.2017 including, that in place of Government Order dated 17th March 2011, it shall be read as 31st December 2009.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court, State of Karnataka including its officers filed an intra-court appeal i.e. Writ Appeal No. 2852/2018 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
9. By the impugned order, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is extracted below:
“10. … On a reading of the same, we note that the earlier Government Order dated 30/03/1990 was modified by order dated 08/02/1994 under which qualification for recruitment was as under:
‘No person shall be eligible for recruitment as a Lecturer unless he/she has:
(a) obtained a Master’s Degree in the respective subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade and a good academic record from a University established by law in India.
(b) the qualification is the National Eligibility Test conducted/to be conducted for this purpose at the State level/National level by the UGC/CSIR or any such tests accredited to by the UGC’
11. The said qualifications are for recruitment of a Lecturer with effect from 08/02/1994 in which case they would be entitled to the benefit of the UGC pay scale also, but in the instant case, the controversy is with regard to respondent No. 1 already being appointed as a Lecturer on 02/07/1993, on which day the requisite qualification for passing NET/SLET was not mandatory inasmuch as the State Government had not incorporated the said condition by the Government Order dated 13/03/1990. That order was extant when respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Lecturer in respondent No. 3/degree college. Therefore, the State cannot now contend that even those Lecturers who were appointed prior to the year 1994 had to pass NET/SLET in order to be eligible for the extension of UGC pay scales.
12. In fact, insofar as those Lecturers who were appointed between 13/04/1990 and 07/02/1994, a clarification was issued in the Government Order dated 17/03/2011. Respondent No. 1 is also a beneficiary of the said clarification inasmuch as the passing of NET/SLET was not insisted upon vis-à-vis those Lecturers who were appointed in the interregnum period, i.e., from 30.03.1990 to 07.02.1994. Therefore, the State cannot apply the condition of passing NET/SLET retrospectively to those Lecturers who are appointed in the aforesaid period. In the circumstances, we find that the learned Single Judge was right in initially saying that respondent No. 1 herein is entitled to benefit of UGC pay scales as per Government Order dated 17/03/2011 by fixing of pay scales notionally with effect from 01/09/1995 and thereafter, respondent No. 1 herein being admitted to grant-inaid on 28/04/2008 shall be extended with effect from 17/3/2011 on par with the five Lecturers who were covered under the said Government Order and not with effect from 31/12/2009 as modified by the learned Single Judge by the subsequent order dated 09/11/2007 passed on I.A. No. 1/2017.
13. Appeal is allowed in part in terms of the aforesaid modification in the order of the learned Single Judge.
The appellant shall complete the notional fixation of UGC pay scales to respondent no. 1 with effect from 01/04/1995 after deducting pay scales already paid to her as has been paid to the five Lecturers who are covered under the Government Order dated 17.03.2011 and pay the arrears of UGC pay scales to respondent No. 1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.”
10. Against the order dated 15.04.2021, a review petition i.e. R.P. No. 406/2021 was filed by the appellant for restoration of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, so that the benefit of UGC pay scale is available to the appellant with effect from 31.12.2009 and not from 17.03.2011, as directed vide order dated 15.04.2021. However, the above review petition was dismissed vide second impugned order dated 19.07.2022.
11. Aggrieved by the orders of the Division Bench, the appellant has filed these appeals.
12. We have heard Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant; and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
13. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge were both of the opinion that the order dated 30.01.2012 denying UGC pay scale to the appellant was bad in law as the requirement to pass NET/SLET/PhD was applicable with effect from 07.02.1994 whereas those Lecturers who were appointed between 30.03.1990 and 07.02.1994 were not to be denied UGC pay scales for want of those qualifications. Once that is the position, the appellant whose appointment was approved for State pay scale, was entitled to the benefit of UGC pay scale as was available to other similarly situated Lecturers. Moreover, one Smt. Girija, Lecturer in Economics in K.S. Jagaluru College of Arts and Commerce, Dharwad, was admitted to UGC pay scale vide Government Order dated 31.12.2009, therefore, similarly situated Lecturer such as the appellant was also entitled to UGC pay scale in terms thereof. Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in directing correction in the order dated 20.06.2017, which was wrongly set aside by the Division Bench in writ appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE
14. On behalf of the State, it was contended that UGC pay scale was made available to the appellant only because similarly situated Lecturers in the college of the appellant were given the benefit of the said scale vide Government Order dated 17.03.2011, therefore, there was no occasion to grant the benefit of UGC pay scale on basis of some other Government Order than the one which was applicable to similarly situated Lecturers in the college where the appellant was working. Accordingly, it was contended, there is no merit in these appeals and the same be dismissed.
15. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the records.
DISCUSSION
16. Before we proceed to address the submissions, it would be apposite to take not of those facts regarding which there is no dispute. These are as under:
17. The appellant was appointed on 02.07.1993 in a private institution, which was admitted to grant-inaid vide Government Order dated 30.10.1995, with effect from 01.09.1995. Initially, there was some dispute as to whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of grant-in-aid i.e., State pay scale. But, later, that dispute was resolved and vide Government Order dated 28.04.2008, the benefit of grant-in-aid i.e., State pay scale was made available to the appellant with effect from 01.09.1995.
18. There is also no dispute that UGC pay scale was extended by the State of Karnataka to various educational institutions in the State of Karnataka vide Government Order dated 15.11.1999.
19. There was some dispute regarding eligibility to avail the benefit of UGC pay scale and therefore, the claim of the appellant for UGC pay scale was rejected vide order dated 30.01.2012, which was challenged before the Writ Court. However, there existed no dispute that the State had extended the benefit of UGC pay scale to four Lecturers and one Librarian, who were appointed during the period 30.03.1990 to 07.02.1994 in the same college wherein the appellant was appointed.
20. In view of the admitted factual position, the High Court vide order dated 20.06.2017 extended the benefit of UGC pay scale to the appellant in terms of the Government Order dated 17.03.2011 to maintain parity. However, after passing the order dated 20.06.2017, vide order dated 09.11.2017, learned Single Judge of the High Court corrected the order so that in place of Government Order dated 17.03.2011 it is read as Government Order dated 31.12.2009.
21. The relevant portion of the Government Order dated 17.03.2011, in terms whereof the order dated 20.06.2017 was passed by the learned Single Judge, is extracted below:
“As mentioned in the Preamble, as it is justified in Government Circular dated 19.02.1997 and as per the direction given as per Government Letter No. 11.01.2011 and 04.03.2011, the Lecturers who have been appointed between 30.03.1990 to 07.02.1994 as Lecturers/librarian in full time basis in Sheshadripuram College (Aided Evening College), Bengaluru which comes under the purview of Bengaluru Joint Director, for 04 Lecturers and 01 Librarian the UGC pay scale has been extended subjected to compliance of Rules and UGC prescribed qualification without arrears of pay and yearly increment which will come into effect from the date their post has been approved for grant-in-aid/from the date State pay scale has been given. Monetary benefits with prospective effect has been given from the date of this order.
The claim(s) of salary of the below mentioned candidates are subjected to local accounts scrutiny.
| Sl. No. | Name of the Lecturer/Librarian | Subject | Name of the College | Date on which appointed full time | Date of the govt. order in which appointment was included in grant in aid | Date on which UGC pay scale should be given notionally |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 1 | Hegade Subbraya Eshwar | Sheshadripuram Evening College, Bengaluru | Sanskrit | 01-07-1992 | 14-01-2008 | 01-09-1995 |
| 2 | Mohammad Anzarul Haq | Sheshadripuram Evening College, Bengaluru | Hindi | 01-07-1992 | 14-01-2008 | 01-09-1995 |
| 3 | B.N. Mallikarjun | Sheshadripuram Evening College, Bengaluru | Commerce | 02-07-1993 | 14-01-2008 | 01-09-1995 |
| 4 | A.B. Nagaraja | Sheshadripuram Evening College, Bengaluru | Commerce | 01-12-1993 | 14-01-2008 | 01-09-1995 |
| 5 | K. Maithili | Sheshadripuram Evening College, Bengaluru | Librarian | 03-05-1993 | 14-01-2008 | 01-09-1995 |
Sd/-
Director
Department of Collegiate Education”
22. On the other hand, the order dated 31.12.2009, under which the appellant claims benefit relates to some other institution. For clarity, the order dated 31.12.2009 is reproduced below:
“GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No. ED 23 UPC 09
Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Multi-storeyed Builiding
Bengaluru,
Date: 31-12-2009.
From,
Principal Secretary,
Education Department (Higher Education),
Bengaluru.
To,
The Commissioner,
Department of Collegiate Education,
Bengaluru-560 001.
Sir,
Subject: Extension of UGC Pay scale to Smt. Girija Yabannanavara, Lecturer in Economics,
Smt. K.S. Jagaluru College of Arts and Commerce,
Dharwad.
Ref. Letter No: Khashie: 21: GSG: PCC-2:93,
Dtd.: 01-06-2009
**************
With reference to the above subject, the Government letter with same number dtd: 01-09-2009 is withdrawn. I am directed to give monetary benefit to Smt. Girija Yabannanavara, Lecturer in Economics by fixing notional extension of UGC pay scale from 16-07-1990 to 01-11-1995, from the date the college got grant in aid.
Yours Truly
Sd/-
(S.M. Nandakumar)
Under Secretary to Government
Education Department (Collegiate Education).”
23. When we compare the aforesaid two Government orders i.e. dt. 17.03.2011 and 31.12.2009, it is clear that order dated 31.12.2009 relates to conferment of monetary benefits to one Smt. Girija Yabannanavara, Lecturer in economics, who was working at Smt. K.S. Jagaluru College of Arts and Commerce, Dharwad whereas, the order dated 17.03.2011 specifically relates to Lecturers of the institution wherein the appellant was working. There is no clarity on the issue as to under what circumstances Smt. Girija Yabannanavara was granted benefit of UGC pay scale from the dates specified therein.
24. In these circumstances, once the learned Single Judge had extended the benefit of parity to the appellant on the strength of Government Order dated 17.03.2011, there was no justification to alter it and confer it in terms of the order dated 31.12.2009 which related to some other institution. The Division Bench, therefore, was justified in partly allowing the appeal and restoring the benefits as available under the order dated 17.03.2011 and not in terms of order dated 31.12.2009 as was incorporated by way of correction. We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
———
1 The High Court
2 UGC
