TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the pay scales admissible to employees holding equivalent posts in the Government Educational Institutions. The question arises against the following backdrop. The petitioners are working as non-teaching employees of the respondent-Society, who has among other Institutions established what is known as Dayanandasagar College of engineering at Bangalore. The College, it is not in dispute, is recognised by the Government of Karnataka and the All India council for Technical Education. It is affiliated to the Bangalore university under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976.

( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that they have been working as permanent non-teaching employees for more than 10 years in the aforementioned College against different posts such as Instructors, Programmers, Clerks, Mechanics, Helpers and attenders in various Departments of Engineering. They were appointed initially on a consolidated salary ranging from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 1500/- depending upon the post held by them, which payment was in no way commensurate with the nature of the work assigned to them or equivalent to the scale of pay attached to similar posts in Government Institutions. Regular pay scales were denied to the petitioners and so were the annual increments despite their long service. The Institution has not maintained even the requisite Service Registers nor has any leave benefit been given to them as per the rules and the norms prescribed by the Department of Technical Education. The management, it is alleged, had despite repeated requests and representations, failed to consider the petitioners' claim for grant of regular pay scales, thereby causing severe financial hardship and insecurity to them. A mandamus directing sanction and disbursement of the pay scale admissible to employees working against similar posts in Government institutions has been claimed in the above background.

( 3 ) THE respondents have contested the claim made by the petitioners. The objections filed by them point out that the petitioners had been appointed from time to time without following the regular method of recruitment. It is urged that most of the petitioners do not fulfil the conditions of eligibility prescribed for the equivalent post in the Government institutions. The appointments of the petitioners, it is alleged, were made purely on humanitarian grounds and even though they are being paid a consolidated salary, the same was by no means a small amount. A statement enclosed with the objections sets out in detail the particulars of the service rendered by the petitioners, the salary being paid to them and whether or not they possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the post. Since the Institution is not getting any grant from the State government, the respondents apprehend that any direction for payment of regular pay scales to the petitioners would mean an unbearable financial burden for them.

( 4 ) I have heard Counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) RULE 5 of Karnataka Private Educational Institutions rules, 1978 relates to the scales of pay admissible to employees of Private Educational Institutions and reads thus. "scale of pay. The scale of pay of an employee of an institution shall not be lower than the scale of pay of an employee of a corresponding post in the Government Educational institutions".

( 6 ) THE term 'institution' occurring in the Rules has been defined by Rule 2 (i) to mean a Private Educational Institution. The said expression is in turn defined by Section 2 (d) of the karnataka Private Educational Institutions Act, 1975 to mean an Educational Institution which is not owned by the State government or the Central Government, a local authority or, any other authority designated or sponsored by the State government or the Central Government or a local authority but which is recogn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document