@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Gopala Gowda, J.@mdashThe petitioner is a retired employee of 3rd respondent Adarsha Film Institute. He is seeking to quash the impugned endorsement at Annexure-D dated 17.3.1999 rejecting his claim for pensionary benefits and for a direction to the respondents to pay the retirement benefits.
2. The rejection of the claim was on the ground that the 3rd respondent is governed by separate Grant-in-Aid Code and the Government orders applicable to other aided private educational institutions are not applicable to it and that the institution does not come within the purview of Grant-in-Aid Code. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, while justifying the impugned action, they have prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
3. Elaborate statement of objections is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent reiterating what is stated in the impugned endorsement and justifying the same punned action, they have prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perusing the documents, I proceed to examine the merits of the case.
5. The fact that the 3rd respondent is an aided private educational institute cannot be denied in view of the finding recorded by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. By Government Order dated 23.6.1976, Grant-in-Aid Code for Film Industries in the State (hereinafter called ''the Rules'') has been made applicable. Rule 6 thereof reads as under:-
"6. The rules contained in this Code shall be treated as supplementary to the General Rules of expenditure and disbursement of Grant-in-aid laid down in the Karnataka Financial Code and other Financial Manuals. Where the rules laid down in this Code appear to be inconsistent with the provisions of Karnataka Financial code and Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the rules contained in the latter shall prevail."
From the above Rule it is clear that the Rules are supplementary to the General Rules of expenditure and disbursement of grant-in-aid under Karnataka Financial Code and other financial manuals. Therefore, whatever prescribed under the separate Rules to the respondent No. 3 alone shall not be taken into consideration for determining the reliefs as sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The prescriptions made under the Rules shall be in addition to the general rules of expenditure and disbursement of grant-in-aid laid under the provisions of Karnataka Financial Code (KFC) and other financial manuals. Hence, the provisions contained in the other financial manuals and financial Code shall be borrowed for granting the reliefs to the petitioner.
6. In addition to the above, the latter portion of the Rule extracted above makes it clear that if the provisions of the Rules separately framed for respondent No.3 are inconsistent with the provisions of KFC and Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) the provisions of latter shall prevail. That means, the provisions of the Rules framed for respondent No. 3 shall not be inconsistent with KFC and KCSR. In other words, it is implied that KCSR Rules are applicable to the employees who have been working in the respondent No.3 Educational Institution. If that be so, petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the Writ Petition.
7. It is an undisputed fact that employees working in other aided private educational institutions are entitled to pensionary benefits. Such a benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner, placing the separate Rules, orders framed and passed in favour of respondent No.3. Denial of the same amounts to discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions namely
8. There is no justifiable reason for denying the benefit of pension to the petitioner. Having regard to Section 87 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the Government cannot prescribe different service conditions to the employees of private educational institutions. Prescription of different service conditions to similarly placed employees is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Nobody can dispute that KCSR provides for pensionary benefits to the employees of Private Aided Educational Institutions. If the same benefit is not provided under the Rules, the same will be inconsistent with KCSR and per Rule 6 of the Rules, it follows that the provisions of KCSR will prevail. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits. Hence, the contention of learned Government Pleader that the 3rd respondent is governed by separate set of Rules and the Government Orders and Rules applicable to other private educational institutions are not applicable to it, cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected.
9. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement at Annexure-D is quashed. Respondents are directed to re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made above and grant the benefit. The arrears shall be paid within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. In the light of reasons recorded, the petitioner is also entitled to gratuity and he shall submit necessary application within two weeks before the Controlling Authority, who shall dispose of the same expeditiously.
