IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.41063 OF 2016 (S-RES) Between:
Dr.B.C.Shankaralingappa, Aged about 61 years, S/o Late Banada Chittappa, Residing at No.61, 1st Main, GKVK Layout, Jakkur, Bengaluru-560 064.
(By Sri.Chandranna, Advocate) And:
University of Agricultural Sciences, By its Registrar, G.K.V.K., Bengaluru-560 065.
(By Sri.R.Sridhar Hiremath, Advocate) …Petitioner ...Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsements dated 16.06.2016 and 08.07.2016 issued by the respondent at Annexure-U and U1 to U6 and also direct the respondent to step up their pay to that of Dr.Nagaraju from the date of his promotion as prayed for by the petitioners in their representation s given to the respondent..
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following relief.
“To issue an order, direction or a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsements dated 16.06.2016 and 08.07.2016 issued by the Respondent (At Annexures U and U1 to U6) and also direct the Respondent to step up their pay to that of Dr.Nagaraju from the date of his promotion, as prayed for by the petitioners in their representation given to the Respondent, in the interest of justice.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Dr.Nagaraju who is junior in the cadre of Professor than the petitioner is drawing higher pay than the petitioner. As and when Nagaraju entered the cadre of Professor, pay was fixed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is pay anomaly to the extent that junior got higher pay than the senior. In such circumstances, Government Order dated 24.03.2010 (Annexure-B) is required to be taken note of, particularly, Note-5 relating to fixation of pay in the revised pay structure. In terms of Note 5, petitioner pay is required to be stepped up at par with the Dr.Nagaraju.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-University has pointed out from statement of objections at paragraph-7 that the service pay particulars of Dr.Nagaraju and the petitioner have been depicted. It was submitted that petitioner initially entered into service is against the post of Assistant Professor whereas, the Dr.Nagaraju entered into cadre of Instructor. Thus, both of them have earned promotion to the post of Associate Professor and Professor on different dates. Dr.Nagaraju entered the cadre of Professor in the year 2006 as is evident from service particulars. Petitioner was drawing with a UGC pay bond at Rs.44700+10,000=54,700/- in the Professor cadre and on the said date Dr.Nagaraju was drawing pay at Rs.42,120+9,000/-=51120/- in the professor cadre.
5. At this juncture, it was pointed out that Dr.Nagaraju has been extended the benefit of annual increment with effect from 01.02.2006 whereby, his pay was enhanced to 52,660/-. Further, he was extended the benefit of two advance increments with reference to Ph.D incentive and his pay was fixed with effect from 16.11.2016 aa Rs.44,700 + 9,000 =53,700/-. Further, he got CAS-76 benefit of promotion to the cadre of Professor. In this background, Dr.Nagaraju’s pay was enhanced on 17.11.2006 as 46,320 + 10,000 =56,320/-, whereas the petitioner did not have benefit of annual increment with effect from 01.02.2006, two advance increments as Ph.D incentive, re-fixation of pay and CAS-96 benefit to the post of Professor. In this background, Dr.Nagaraju was drawing higher pay than the petitioner. In the matter like steeping up of pay, service particulars of two officials i.e. junior and senior, should be common. In this regard, Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Karnataka and another V/s. Mohammed Ilyas reported in 2015 (2) AKR 576 at paragraph-16 has held as under;
“16. The benefit of stepping up of pay is permissible in cases where thy: senior and junior government servants stand on equal footing where all the considerations and incidences are identical and the anomaly in their pay is solely attributable to some siwations like revision of pay scale and promotion. In the present case, the anomaly of pay has not occurred due to revision of pay scale or promotions. The learned single Judge has failed to take note of the difference between stepping up of pay and grant of two advance increments due to acquisition of certain qualifications by the respondent and Sri. Karunakaran on acquisition of different qualification and dates. In the impugned order dated 25.11.2006 the second respondent has referred to two Government Orders relating to stepping up of pay namely G.O. No.FD 11 SRP 78 dated 20.4.1978 and GO, No.FD 68 SRP 78 dated 31.1.1979. The said orders relate to exter ding the benefit of stepping up of pay whereas the two advance increments for acquisition of qualification are under G.O. NO.FD 73 SRP (1) 69 dated 18.2.1970 and G.O. No.FD 14 SRP (1) 77 dated 24.5.1977. These two set of Government orders governs stepping up of pay and grant of two advance increments. Therefore, the respondent has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order dated 25.11.2006 of the second respondent. Consequently, granting of relief to the respondent without quashing the Government Order No.LAW 56 LAC 2006 dated 25.11.2006 are not in consonance with the policy evolved by the State Government in respect of extending of stepping up of pay to a senior and the grant of two advance increments.”
Whereas, in the present case service particulars of petitioner and Dr.Nagaraj varies from different cadre, like, Associate Professor and Professor. Further, granting of annual increment, two advance increments and incentive, acquisition of promotion as Professor under CAS-96, thus, it is evident that petitioner even though senior to Dr.Nagaraju, however he has not made out a case for seeking stepping up of pay and for want of equal service benefits at par with Dr.Nagaraju.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SB