IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA Writ Petition No. 56641 OF 2014 (S-RES) Between:
Channabasappa C. Jaliyal, S/o. late Chandrashekarappa, Aged 63 years, 77, 2nd H. Main, 11th Block, 2nd Stage, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore – 560 072.
(By Sri.Somashekar Angadi, Adv.) And:
1. The Managing Director. Karnataka State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Tippusultan Palace Road, Bangalore – 560 018.
2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, No.1, Ali Askar Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
... Petitioner (By Smt. Musrath Tabassum for Sri S.N. Ashwathanarayan, Adv. for R-1 R-2 served, but unrepresented) … Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of The Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-J endorsement issued by Respondent No.1 dated 25.11.2014 and direct the respondent No.1 to refix the salary as already refixed the salary of 11 employees who were juniors to the petitioner.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the court made the following :
O R D E R Petitioner who was appointed as an Accounts Assistant in the 1st respondent office is before this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.11.2014 made in No.Legal /129/2014-15 issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure ‘J’ and direct the respondent to re-fix the salary as already re- fixed in respect of 11 employees who were juniors to the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was appointed as an Accounts Assistant in the 1st respondent office and he was promoted to different posts. It is further contended that the State Government by the order dated 09.05.2002, issued Government Order for stepping up/re-fixation of salary of employees subject to certain conditions. The 1st respondent has prepared Seniority list of employees. In the said list, the petitioner’s name is found at Sl.no.50. Thereafter, he has worked as Office Superintendent in the 1st respondent office. In the year 2006, the 1st respondent again prepared one more seniority list of Superintendents/Senior Assistant/Accounts Assistants /LDI and Assistants. In the said list also the petitioner’s name stood at sl.no.17 and same has been notified by the 1st respondent in the notification dated 16.08.2006 as per Annexure – D produced in the writ petition.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that there are 11 superintendents namely, N. Raghava Mudithraya at sl.no.31, Y.F. Upanal at sl.no.32, K. Shivaram at sl.no.34, B.A. Basavegowda at sl.no.3, M.G.
Raghupathy at sl.no.36, N.S. Shyanbhoge at sl.no.37, A.A. Kupwad at sl.no.38, A.R.A. Shaik at sl.no.39, M. Francis Kumar at sl.no.40 and M. Channaiah at sl.no.41 and all of them gave representation to the 1st respondent for stepping up/re-fixation of their salary for the reason that they have put in 20 years of service without any promotion and continued in the same post in the same cadre. 1st respondent, in turn, submitted all representations to the 4th respondent and sought for proper action. Accordingly, the 4th respondent considered all the representations and fixed stepping of salary to 11 employees on 11.06.2010 who were juniors to the petitioner.
4. It is further contended that the petitioner had worked nearly 37 years in the 1st respondent office and gave representation on 02.02.2011 stating that his salary has to be stepped up/re-fixed as per the salary already re-fixed to his juniors from the date it was re-
fixed. Inspite of representations made to 1st respondent to step up the salary, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner made representations to the respondents to step up the salary because his juniors salary has already been stepped up and they have also received all the benefits from the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent has not considered the same and ultimately, the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2011. Even after retirement, the 1st respondent has not considered to re-fix the salary. Therefore, petitioner has filed writ petition No.31830/2014 to direct the respondents to consider the representation as per Annexures-G1 to G4.
5. This Court, after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 11.08.2014, directed the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 28.11.2012 and to pass orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the respondents rejected the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure ‘J’. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
6. The respondents have filed objections to the main petition and contended that the very writ petition is not maintainable for the relief sought for. The contention of the petitioner made in para 11 to 16 is true that the bank has stepped up and re-fixed the salary of the 11 employees who were juniors to the petitioner. But the petitioner and 11 employees were appointed under different appointment orders i.e., petitioner was appointed as IV grade Pool Officer along with other 24 candidates as per Order No. Pool/LDB/484/73-74 dated 03.04.2014 and the said employees namely N.Raghava Mudithaya, Y.F.Upanal, K.Shivaram, B.A.Basavegowda, M.G.Raghupathi, P.S.Gurupadappa, Nagesh.S, Shanbhogue, A.A.Kupawade, Shaik Abdul Rashid Abdul Khan and Mr.Francis Kumar were appointed as per Order No.Pool/LDB/569/75-76 dated 06.01.1976 as IV Grade Pool Officers along with other 40 candidates and another employee Sri.M. Channaiah was appointed as Accounts Assistant along with 69 candidates as per Order No.Adm/Est/4162/79-80 dated 16.01.1980.
7. It is further contended that in this back drop as per RCS Order, the Bank has considered this anomaly and stepped up/re-fixed the salary of these employees who were drawing less salary than that of the juniors appointed in the same order, because of this, these 10 employees were drawing more salary than that of the petitioner in Superintendent cadre and continued thereafter. Therefore, the respondents sought to dismiss the writ petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
9. Sri. Somashekar Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, has contended that it is clear from the seniority list that 11 persons shown in the seniority list discloses they are juniors to the petitioner. Such being the position, the respondents ought to have to step up the salary of the petitioner along with 11 persons and extend the benefits but the respondents have not stepped up the salary of the petitioner and not re-fixed the salary and only 11 persons salary has been re-fixed.
10. He further contended that the respondents, at the time of stepping up the salary of 11 employees of the same cadre, made discrimination between the petitioner and the 11 employees who were juniors to the petitioner. It is violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. He would further contend that inspite of the representations made, the respondents have not considered and the impugned endorsement came to be issued only to say there is no difference of salary between other persons and the petitioner. The authorities have not considered the material on record and passed the impugned order which is erroneous. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order.
11. Per contra Smt.Musrath Tabassum on behalf of Sri.S.N.Ashwathnarayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that 11 employees salary was re- fixed because they were appointed under different appointment orders for different cadres. Therefore, the salary of 11 persons which is stepped up/re-fixed is not in uniformity with that of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is the specific case of the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Assistant and thereafter, was promoted to different posts and ultimately, in the seniority list of superintendents, the name of the petitioner was found at Sl.no.50 on 01.01.2003 and thereafter he worked as Office Superintendent in 1st respondent office. Again, the 1st respondent prepared one more seniority list on 01.01.2006 of Superintendents/Senior Assistant/ Accounts Assistants/LDI and Assistants. In that list also, the petitioner’s name was found at sl.no.17. The petitioner came to know of re-fixing/stepping up of salary to 11 persons who were juniors to him. In the statement of objections the respondent sought to justify and again contended that 11 employees who were juniors to the petitioner were appointed under different appointment orders as IV Grade Pool Officer along with 24 candidates and the petitioner was appointed under different category as IV Grade Pool Officer along with 40 candidates, therefore they are not juniors to the petitioner and there is no discrimination and anomaly between the petitioner and the 11 employees appointed on the same order along with the petitioner. Therefore, the question of stepping up of salary does not arise. The fact remains that what is not stated in the impugned order has been reiterated in the statement of objections which is impermissible. The statement of objections says that 11 persons appointed in different cadres and there is no discrimination or anomaly in salary and the same has not been reflected in the impugned order made by the Managing Director on 25.11.2014. What is not stated in Annexure – J cannot be added or improved by statement of objections which is impermissible under law.
13. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he made a representation as per Annexure – G3 dated 10.02.2012 and the said representation was the subject matter of the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.31830/2014. This Court, while disposing writ petition on 11.08.2014, directed the 1st respondent to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation on merits, in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If it has already been decided, the decision may be communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was also permitted to produce the copy of the order made in the writ petition. Inspite of the same, the 1st respondent proceeded to issue the endorsement even without considering the representation and the order passed by this Court and there is no clarity in the order except stating that “vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPÀÄ PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀÄÝ vÁªÀÅ ¨ÁåAQUÉ 1974 gÀ°è £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, vÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è CAzÀgÉ 1974 gÀ°è MAzÉà DzÉñÀzÀ°è £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀÄ vÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÁV §rÛ ºÉÆA¢zÀAvÀºÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À £ÀqÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ªÉÃvÀ£À vÁgÀvÀªÀÄå«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ªÉÃvÀ£À vÁgÀvÀªÀÄå GAmÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.” The respondent has not stated how the petitioner has not been discriminated and how the 11 persons have been given the benefits and re-fixation of salary and how the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.11.2014 vide Annexure ‘J’ is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner to re-fix the salary as already re-fixed in respect of 11 employees who were juniors to the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE UN