The State of Karnataka v. Praksh Adpekar S/O Gopal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO. 105446 OF 2025 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU.

¶2THE COMMISSIONER O/O. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶3THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS UTTARA KANNADA, DISTRICT KARWAR-581301. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.04 10:47:22 +0530 NC:(2025:KHC-D:14699-DB( WP(No.(105446(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AND:( ( SRI.,PRAKSH,ADAPEKAR,S/O.,GOPAL, AGED,ABOUT,72,YEARS,,, OCCUPATION:,RETIRED,GOVERNMENT,, SCHOOL,CRAFT,TEACHER,(TAILORING),, RESIDENT,OF,MALLAPUR,,, TQ.,HONNAVAR,,, UTTARA,KANNADA,DIST-581323., …RESPONDENT, , , THIS,WP,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF,THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDA,,PRAYING,TO,,CALL,FOR,RECORDS,IN, APPLICATION,NO.10612/2021,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,KARNATAKA, STATE, ADMINISTRATIVE, TRIBUNAL,, BELAGAVI, AND, ISSUE, A, WRIT, OF, CERTIORARI, OR, ANY, OTHER, APPROPRIATE, WRIT, ORDER,OR,DIRECTION,SETTING,ASIDE,THE,IMPUGNED,ORDER, PASSED, IN, APPLICATION, NO.10612/2021, DATED, 29.05.2023, PASSED, BY, THE, KARNATAKA, STATE, ADMINISTRATIVE, TRIBUNAL,,BELAGAVI,,VIDE,ANNEXURE,–,A,AND,ETC.,., , , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING,, THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,G,PANDIT, ,AND,, ,THE,HON'BLE,MRS,JUSTICE,GEETHA,K.B.,

ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

The petitioners-State authorities in Education Department are before this Court questioning the order dated 29.05.2023 passed in Application No.10612/2021 by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (For short 'Tribunal') Belagavi, whereunder the tribunal passed the following: "11. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for our interference. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The third respondent is directed to consider the representation in terms of the Notification dated

30.04.2018 and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

¶2Heard learned AGA Sri.G.K.Hiregouder and perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶3It is seen that the respondent approached the tribunal seeking writ of mandamus to Rs.1,400/- +

allowance from the date of his appointment and direct the concerned officials to calculate and pay the arrears plus allowances plus interest till the date of actual payment and for other reliefs. It is the case of the respondent that he was appointed as a Craft Teacher on 26.09.1988. At the time of his appointment, the applicant had the qualification of SSLC, two years certificate course in Tailoring and BA, which was the qualification prescribed for Craft Teacher Grade-I as per the K.E.D.S.(Recruitment) Rules, 1967(Annexure-A2). It is stated that the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in 2012. As per Circular dated 30.04.2018 issued by the Department of Public Instructions, it is claimed that the respondent is entitled for re-fixation of his pay in terms of the said circular. The respondent appears to have submitted the representation. The Tribunal on considering the facts, circular dated 30.04.2018 and the representation of the respondent dated 24.12.2019 directed the authorities to

consider the representation in terms of Circular dated

30.04.2018 and pass appropriate orders.

¶4On going through the material on record, we are of the opinion that the tribunal has not issued any positive direction. The direction of the tribunal is only to consider the representation of the respondent in the light of the circular dated 30.04.2018 and to pass appropriate orders. The direction to consider would not mean the determination of entitlement or right of the respondent.

¶5In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected.

Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27