Legislative amendments cannot nullify judicial decisions affirming equal treatment rights for teaching staff in aided institutions, as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following prayer:

I) 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-G 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, in the interest of justice and equity.

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 Petition No.105439/2014 & Writ Petition Nos.108382-417/2014 disposed off on 24^th July 2020, wherein it has held as follows:

“The captioned writ petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of Act No.4 of 2015. The petitioners are also seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of additional increment for having passed Kannada examination as per Circulars dated 03.11.2000 and 12.09.2001.

2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petitions are as under:

The petitioners are the teaching and non-teaching staff of private aided educational institutions in the state of Karnataka. The petitioners have averred in the writ petitions that some of them are in service and some of them have retired. It is also stated that some of them have retired after filing of the writ petitions. The petitioners have specifically contended in the writ petitions that, they have passed Kannada language examination as provided under Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974 ( for short ‘the Rules’). The case of the petitioners be fore this Court is that they are entitled for additional increment as per Rule 6 of the Rules on par with teaching and non- teaching staff of Government School in the State of Karnataka. The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petitions that in respect of similarly placed teaching and non-teaching staff of aided schools, the benefit of an additional increment is extended. The petitioners have specifically contended that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.19846-20413/2012, wherein this Court had directed to grant additional increment to the petitioners therein and it is also stated that this order is con firmed by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court.

3. The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the benefit of granting one increment to the Government employees is decided by the Government and the same was implemented by Circular dated 03.11.2000. Subsequently by Circular dated 12.09.2001 it was also indicated that the said benefit of one increment for passing the Kannada language examination or having studied Kannada language in qualifying examination would be made applicable, even if such requirement has not been made compulsory. The case of the petitioners is that though the Circular relate to extending the said benefit to the Government employees, subsequently, by memorandum dated 06.08.2002, the manner to calculate the implementation of said benefit and nature in which increment was to be granted is also clarified.

4. The petitioners in this context are be fore this Court claiming the said benefit since all other service conditions of these employees are similar to that of teaching and non-teaching staff of Government Schools.

5. The petitioners have also relied on catena of judgments rendered by Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court prior to the impugned n