IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT APPEAL NOS.1092-1096 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. N. NARASIMHAIAH S/O.NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR 2. B.B. SHIVANNA S/O.BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS WATER SUPPLIER/ BILL COLLECTOR 3. K.S.PARAMESHWARAIAH S/O.SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS WATERMAN 4. A.N.MANJUNATH S/O.NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS WATERMAN 5. H.R.SHADAKSHARI S/O.RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS WATERMAN ALL ARE WORKING IN AMMASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/AT AMMASANDRA VILLAGE DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 211 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU – 572 101 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT TUMAKURU – 572 101 5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT TURUVEKERE TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572 227 6. GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESNTED BY PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AMMASANDRA DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 211 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP R1 TO R3;
SRI J.N.NAVEEN FOR SRI A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATES FOR R4 TO R6) ---
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NOS.6880-6884/2018 AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the first to third respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth to sixth respondents.
2. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.
3. It is not in dispute that the appellants who are the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge, were employed by the Town Municipal Council. The employment of the appellants was made over to a Mandal Panchayat. In the year 1993, the Mandal Panchayat was divided and the employment of the appellants was made over to the sixth respondent-Grama Panchayat.
4. Writ petitions were filed by the appellants praying for the following two substantive reliefs:
“a) a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to pay the salary and other allowances to the petitioners by considering and treating the petitioners as the employees of the 6th respondent grama panchayath as per the representation dated 31/10/2017 true copy of which is produced as Annexure-E.
b) a writ in the nature of direction to the respondents to pay the entire arrears of salary and other allowance for 48 months due to the petitioners.”
5. The contention raised in the writ petitions was that the requisite salary and allowances were not paid to the petitioners. It appears that the appellants relied upon Annexure-‘C’ which incorporates emoluments payable to the appellants. Interim order was passed during the pendency of the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge. As the interim order was not complied with, the appellants filed CCC.Nos.1381-1385/2018. In the contempt petitions, a direction dated 30th August 2018 was issued to the Panchayat Development Officer to ensure that the arrears of salary from January, 2018 on the pay scale applicable to the employees of the Panchayat Raj shall be paid to the complainants. Later on the contempt petitions were disposed of recording the amount paid to the appellants. The learned Single Judge noted the amount paid to the appellants in paragraph-5 and also reproduced the submission of the respondents that as the said amount has been paid and the pay scale has been re-fixed, the writ petitions have become infructuous. In paragraph-6, the learned Single Judge observed that the representation made by the appellants (Annexure-E to the writ petition) has been substantially redressed by the respondents. A liberty was granted to the appellants to make a representation to the respondents, in case, they are aggrieved by the re-fixation of the pay scale.
6. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the main issue which was required to be decided in the writ petitions was as regards the salary and allowances payable to the appellants when their employment was initially made over to the Mandal Panchayat and subsequently, to the sixth respondent. The learned Single Judge in paragraph-5 of the impugned order has made a reference to the payment made by the respondents in terms of the order passed in the contempt petitions in which breach of interim order was alleged. In the contempt petitions, the substantive adjudication regarding the entitlement of the appellants could not have been made. The fourth respondent, in terms of the earlier order of this Court has filed the statement of objections. Paragraph-7 thereof indicates that while fixing the pay scale of the appellants at Rs.11,000/-, the issue of entitlement of the appellants is not taken into consideration. It will only refers to the notification issued by the Labour Department fixing the pay scale of Watermen and other equivalent posts.
7. As the issue of entitlement of the appellants to a particular pay scale and allowances is not decided by the learned Single Judge, by setting aside the impugned order, the matter will have to be remitted to the learned Single Judge.
8. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The impugned order dated 26th February 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside and the writ petitions are restored to the file of the learned Single Judge;
(ii) The learned Single Judge shall decide the writ petitions afresh in the light of what is held in the judgment and order;
(iii) We make it clear that no final adjudication is made on the entitlement of the appellants and the issue is left open for decision of the learned Single Judge;
(iv) The appeals are partly allowed on the above terms. No order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB