IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION Nos.6880-6884 OF 2018 (S-RES) Between:
1. N. Narasimhaiah S/o. Narasimhamurthy Aged about 58 years Working as pump operator 2. B.B. Shivanna S/o. Byrappa Aged about 54 years Working as water supplier/bill collector 3. K.S. Parameshwaraiah S/o. Shivanna Aged about 58 years Working as waterman 4. A.N. Manjunath S/o. Nanjundappa Aged about 45 years Working as waterman 5. H.R. Shadakshari S/o. Rudrappa Aged about 45 years Working as waterman All are working in Ammasandra Grama Panchayath, residents of Ammasandra Village, Dandinashivara Hobli Turuvekere Taluk Tumkur District-572 101. …Petitioners (By Sri Gangadharappa A.V., Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayath Raj and Rural Development Department M.S. Building, Amebdkar Road Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Director of Municipal Administration Vishweshwaraiah Tower, Ambedkar Road Bangalore-560 001.
3. Deputy Commissioner Tumkur District Tumkur- 572 101.
4, Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayath Tumkur-572 101.
5. Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Turuvekere Tumkur District-572 101.
6. Grama Panchayath Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer Ammasandra, Dandinashivara Hobli Turuvekere Taluk Tumkur District-572 101. …Respondents (By Smt. M.S. Prathima, AGA for R1 to R3 Sri D. Nagarajappa, Advocate for R4 to R6) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records and proceedings of the case, direct the respondents to pay the salary and other allowances to the petitioners by considering and treating the petitioners as the employee of the sixth respondent Grama Panchayath as per the representation dated 31.10.2017 true copy of which is produced as Annexure-E and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners contend that they were employees of the Town Municipal Council, Adityapattana in Turuvekere Taluk, for maintenance of supply of water. Consequent to the dissolution of the Town Municipal Council, Dandinashivara Mandal Panchayath was constituted and the petitioners continued to work in Dandinashivara Mandal Panchayath. In the year 1993, Dandinashivara Mandal Panchayath was divided into three Grama Panchyaths and the petitioners were assigned to Ammasandra Grama Panchayath which is arrayed as respondent No.6 herein.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that they have not received the salary from the respondent No.6 – Grama Panchayath for the last 44 months and in this regard, the petitioners made several representations to the respondent No.6- Grama Panchayath as well as the higher authorities. Since the representations were not considered, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate order directing the respondent to pay the salary and other allowances by considering and treating the petitioners as employees of respondent No.6- Grama Panchayath, as per the representation dated 31.10.2017, at Annexure-‘E’.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submits that during the course of these proceedings, the interim order dated 16.4.2018 was passed by this Court directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners at the said rate as depicted in Annexure-‘C’, for the current month, forthwith. However, the arrears of previous three months were also directed to be paid within four weeks from the date of the order. Since there was non-compliance of the order, the petitioners herein approached the Contempt Court in CCC Nos. 1381/2018 and 1385/2018. By order dated 30.8.2018, the Contempt Court observed that it is unclear as to whether the petitioners are entitled to pay scale of the employees of Town Municipal Council or the pay scale applicable to the Panchayath. In order to clear the confusion, the Principal Secretary of Panchayath Raj Department was summoned to the Court and on the basis of the assurance made, it was also directed that the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayath Raj and Rural Development to ensure that the arrears of salary from January 2018 on the pay scale applicable to the employees of Panchayath shall be paid to the petitioners within a period two weeks. Thereafter, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that a sum of Rs.4,74,144/- (Four lakhs seventy four thousand one hundred and forty four only) has been paid to each of the petitioners herein. Subsequently, by a memorandum dated 15.11.2018, the pay scales of the petitioners has also been re-fixed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, Turuvekere.
4. In the light of the above, it is submitted that the respondents have paid the entire arrears of salary which according to them was payable to the petitioner and the pay scale has also been re-fixed. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition has become infructuous and therefore, it may be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the pay scale fixed by the respondents was without hearing the petitioners and it is not in accordance with law. Though it is admitted by the petitioners that each of the petitioners have received Rs.4,74,144/-, it is submitted that the respondents are still due to pay the petitioners, if the calculation is made in accordance with what the petitioners were receiving earlier from the Dandinashivara Mandal Panchayath.
6. On hearing both the sides and on perusing the writ papers, this Court is of the opinion that the initial grievance of the petitioners as is seen in the representation at Annexure-‘E’, has been substantially redressed by the respondents. However, if the petitioners are aggrieved with the re-fixation of the pay scale and that arrears are still to be paid by the respondents, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondents by making proper representation. If the said representation is not considered, the petitioners may take further steps in that regard.
7. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will make representation to the respondents within a period of one week from today. The respondents are directed to consider such representation and pass orders, in accordance with law within a period of two months when such representation is received from the petitioners.
Since the main petition is disposed of, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD