Teacher fights three rounds of cases to win salary benefits

High Court calls it an 'unfortunate' litigation and Education Department’s plea against KAT order

S Shyam Prasad

Dharwad: Calling it an “unfortunate” litigation the High Court of Karnataka dismissed a plea filed by the Department of Education challenging a Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KAT) that had struck down the department’s order denying service benefits to a retired teacher.

“It is an unfortunate litigation of a teacher who served in the educational institution from 1986 and retired from service on superannuation wef 30.06.2018 to claim his salary and service benefits,” the division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Umesh A Adiga said in their January 10 judgment ruling in favour of the teacher, MN Snnubai.

Sannubai was appointed as a Hindi teacher on part-time basis in the Sri Gurushanteshwara Government Junior Composite College in the year 1986. In the year 1998, his salary was fixed on a full-time basis and he was regularised in service on 28.03.2007. This regularisation was based on a High Court judgement passed in 2010. In 2001, Sannubai approached the KAT claiming service benefits and fixation of pay.

The KAT allowed his application and issued directions to the Education Department by an order dated April 26, 2015. The appointing authority fixed his pay in June 2015 and it was paid from August 1997 onwards. In 2016, the appointing authority recalled its earlier order and directed Sannubai to return the amount paid to him.

Sannubai approached the KAT again, which in 2019 set aside the appointing authority’s order and ordered for restoring the pay scale of Sannubai. It further ordered “to repay the amount that was already recovered from the respondent by the petitioners.”

Sannubai approached the authorities to follow the KAT order and return his salary benefits and extend the pension benefits. But the department approached the HC against him. The HC said that the department had not challenged the KAT order that had attained finality.

“It is pertinent to note that petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the KAT and instead of complying with the said order have rejected the representation of the respondent, which was made on the basis of orders passed by the KAT. The said rejection was not bona fide,” the HC said.

Refusing to interfere in the KAT order, the HC said, “If at all the petitioners have got aggrieved by the orders passed by the KAT, then they ought to have challenged the same before the competent forum. Without taking to such recourse, the petitioner defied the order of KAT and the impugned order passed by the petitioners denying the payment of service benefits t