IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO.47821/2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
DR.JUSTICE K BHAKTHAVATSALA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 7TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN.
K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.RAJENDRA M.S. AND MS.MAYA HOLLA, ADVS.) AND:
1. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KARNATAKA, P.B. NO. 5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 3. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SECTION, ROOM NO.5, THIRD FLOOR, LOKNAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI – 110 003 4. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, KANDAYA BHAVAN, 6TH AND 7TH FLOORS, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.C.SHASHIKANTHA, CGC FOR R3; SRI.K.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IS ENTITLED TO A SALARY EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT; QUASH THE LETTER DATED 13.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AT ANNEX-F; DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER SALARY EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE; DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO FIX THE SALARY AT RS. 90,000 P.M. FROM 15.12.2015 AND REVISE THE SAME AS AND WHEN SEC. 13A OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGES ACT, 1954 IS AMENDED AND PAY THE ARREARS OF SALARY ALONG WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 16.12.2015 (THE DATE OF ASSUMPTION OF CHARGE AS CHAIRMAN OF KSAT); DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO PAY COST OF THE PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 30.10.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that Chairman of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT for short) is entitled to a salary equivalent to that of Chief Justice of High Court, quash the letter dated 13.9.2017 issued by the Under Secretary to Government of India and to issue directions to the respondents to fix salary of the Chairman, KSAT at Rs.90,000/- from 15.12.2015 and to pay the arrears of salary based on that.
2. The facts of the case to be stated in brief are that, Chairman of KSAT, is not only discharging judicial duties but also carries on administrative duties relating to the entire administration of KSAT and financial powers thereof, identical to the powers of Chief Justice of High Court. Under Section 12 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as `the Act’, financial and administrative powers are conferred on the Chairman. Under Section 13(1A) of the Act, the officers and other employees of the Tribunal shall discharge their functions under the general superintendence of the Chairman. Under Rule 7 of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Services & Allowances & Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) Rules, 1986 (`Service Rules’ for short), the Chairman is the leave sanctioning authority for the Members of the Tribunal.
3. It is stated, the qualification prescribed for appointment of Chairman and Members came to be amended during 1987 and as per Section 6 of the Act, qualification prescribed for the post of Chairman (CAT/KSAT) is that he/she has been a judge of a High Court. There is lot of difference in the qualification for the post of Chairman and that of judicial member and administrative member.
4. It is further stated, salary and conditions of service of a Judge of the High Court are governed by a statute called, The High Court Judges (Salaries & Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as `the HC Salaries Act’ for short. Section 13A of the HC Salaries Act specifies Rs.90,000/- per month to Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice. It is claimed that since Chairman of the KSAT is equivalent to Chief Justice, petitioner is entitled to Rs.90,000/- per month.
5. It is stated, Central Administrative Tribunal (`CAT’ for short), which is also constituted under the Act, the Chairman there gets a higher salary than members of the CAT, equivalent to that of Chief Justice of High Court. In fact, there is more work in the KSAT than CAT, since number of cases filed, are far higher than that filed in CAT. Thus principle of equal pay for equal work is violated, which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, Under Secretary to Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, has written letter dated 13.9.2017 to the petitioner that petitioner is entitled to salary of Rs.80,000/-
p.m. and not Rs.90,000/-.
Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the above reliefs.
6. The respondents No.1 & 2 have filed statement of objections, contending that pay fixed to the post of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other members of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal are covered under the provisions of High Court Judges (Conditions of Service)Act, 1954. Section 10 of the Act stipulates that salaries and allowances of Chairman and members of the Tribunal shall have to be prescribed by Central Government. Thus it is stated, the State Government has no authority whatsoever in this regard. As per Section 8(3) of the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006, the conditions of services of Chairman and members shall be the same as applicable to Judges of the High Court.
7. The third respondent, Union of India, has also filed statement of objections. It is denied that conditions of service of Chairman of KSAT are equivalent to Chief Justice of High Court. It is contended that Section 8(3) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 19.2.2007 stipulates that “the conditions of service of Chairman and Members shall be the same as applicable to Judges of the High Court. The Parliamentary Standing Committee recommends that action in terms of clause 3 and 4 of the Bill related to upward revision of salary, allowances, etc., in the case of Chairman should follow the outcome of the Committee’s recommendations in relation to Section 6(1) of the Act. To the claim of the petitioner that as Chairman he shall be paid higher salary, the respondent No.3 banked upon Section 10 of the Act that “the Salaries and allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service (including pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits) of the Chairman and other Members shall be such as prescribed by the Central Government.” It is further stated that in view of provisions of the Act, no higher salary to the Chairman of KSAT is permissible than the one prescribed in law.
Thus the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Rule 15A of the Service Rules, stipulates conditions of service and other perquisites to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of KSAT. It is beneficial to extract the same, which is as follows:
15A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 4 to 15 of the said rules, the conditions of service and other perquisites available to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal shall be same as admissible to a serving Judge of a High Court as contained in the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (28 of 1954) and High Court Judges (Traveling Allowances) Rules, 1956.
10. The decision in S P Sampath Kumar v. Union of India & others, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 124, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, the said decision related to constitutional validity of the Act establishing Administrative Tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction in service matters and whether its composition and appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman and members have the effect of introducing a constitutional infirmity invalidating the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In that way, the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicated certain amendments to the Act so as to make the Tribunal as an alternative mechanism, but upheld the validity of the Act.
11. It is mentioned in the writ petition that Bill namely, The Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Bill 2012 for revising the eligibility of Chairman of CAT/SAT/JAT and consequently revising their pay at par with Chief Justice of High Court or Judges of Supreme Court was not approved by the Parliamentary Standing Committee. As long as revision of salary is not approved and incorporated in the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to claim salary on par with Chief Justice of High Court or Judges of Supreme Court.
12. The learned counsel for Respondent No.3 Union of India has placed reliance on the decision in M B Majumdar v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 501 which is on the point of equating Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal with that of Chief Justice and that way Members of the Tribunal to that of Judges of a High Court. It is beneficial to extract Para-8 of the judgment, which is as follows:
“8. The sheet-anchor of petitioner’s case is the decision of this Court in Sampath Kumar case. We will presently show that the decision in Sampath Kumar case does not support the petitioner’s claim in this petition. It is significant to note that the age of superannuation of High Court Judges is 62 years while that of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal is 65 years and of any other Member is 62 years. No attempt has been made on behalf of the petitioner to justify the fixation of age of superannuation of the Chairman and the Vice- Chairman as 65 years if they are to be equated with the Chief Justice and sitting Judges of the High Court who retire at the age of 62 years only. In respect of the age of superannuation, the Members of the Tribunal are at par with the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court. Obviously, it is for this reason that an attempt was made to claim the equality with the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal who gets Rs.800 p.m. as pay like a High Court Judge but retires at the higher age of 65 years. This disparity itself indicates that the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and Members of the Tribunal are not equated with the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court for all purposes which, in substance, is the foundation of the petition.”
13. It is clarified in the above decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the further paragraphs that the provisions of the Act indicate that there is no intention of equating the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the Tribunal with the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Courts for purposes other than those expressly provided in respect of jurisdiction, power etc., Equation of the Tribunal with the High Court therein in Sampath Kumar case was only as the forum for adjudication of disputes relating to service matters and not for all purposes such as the one arising for decision in that case. It is also stated that the equality claimed by the Members of the Administrative Tribunal with the Judges of the High Courts or even the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal in the matter of pay and age of superannuation does not exist being contrary to the pattern and scheme of the parent statute establishing the Tribunal.
14. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any higher salary than what is provided in the Act. Establishment of Administrative Tribunal is under a specific statute which governs the service conditions of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members therein. The administrative work to be discharged by the Chairman is the work attached to the post of Chairman and that itself does not lead to a conclusion that Chairman is entitled to a higher salary, in the absence of such prescription in the Act. The work of Chairman of KSAT cannot be compared with that of Chairman of CAT because, they are two different forums having different jurisdiction and are governed by provisions of the Act.
In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly rejected.
akd Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE