Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Prakash D. Chougala – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking declaration of provisions as unconstitutional. (Para 1) |
| 2. summary of previous judgments on similar issues. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. entitlement to additional increment based on past rulings. (Para 4) |
ORDER :
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following prayer:
I. To declare the provisions of Section 3(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and other Benefits) act 2014 (Karnataka act 7 of 2014) dated 12/02/2014 vide Annexure-E passed by the 1st respondent as unconstitutional and consequently struck down the said provisions as ultra virus of the Constitution of India.
II. Issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow the petition with exemplary costs.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.P.G.Chikkanaragund appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP Smt.Girija Hiremath for the respondent-State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Peti
The amendment to deny additional increments to teaching staff of private aided institutions is unconstitutional, violating principles of equality and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Legislative amendments cannot nullify judicial decisions affirming equal treatment rights for teaching staff in aided institutions, as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Legislation denying equal increments to private aided educational staff for Kannada exams is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14, undermining principles of equality and judicial authority.
(1) Amendment to Section 2(e) and insertion of Section 13A to Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, with retrospective effect from 3rd April 1997 vide Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, cannot be categori....
The exclusion of non-teaching staff from revised pay scales in unaided institutions is arbitrary, violating Article 14's guarantee of equality, as both aided and unaided staff should equally share in....
The ACP Rules were not part of the salary grant, and the statutory provisions did not entitle non-teaching employees parity with government employees with respect to the ACP Rules.
Denying aided school principals the permanent exemption from departmental tests available to government principals after age 50 constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, as no intelligible differe....
Government policies on educational benefits must not retrospectively deprive employees of accrued rights, ensuring equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16, reinforcing the principle of vested rights....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
