IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Writ Petition Nos.18366-18367/2014 (S-RES) Between :
1. Shri N. S. Vairamudigowda S/o. Singarigouda, Aged 53 years, Working as Lower Division Clerk, Indian Institute of science, Hostel Office, Bangalore-560012.
2. Shri R. Gopala S/o. Ramu T., Aged 49 years, Working as Lower Division Clerk, Audit Collection (Finance & Accounts), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore-560012. …Petitioners (By Sri B. B. Bajentri, Advocate) And :
1. The Director Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore-560012.
2. The Registrar Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore-560012. …Respondents (By Sri M. S. Prasad, Advocate for R-1 and R-2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 4.12.2013, vide Annexure-D and E within a time frame specified by this Hon’ble Court and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER For non-consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioners on 4.12.2013, the petitioners have approached this court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.12.1983, petitioner No.1, Mr. N. S. Vairamudigowda, was appointed as a Group-D; on 28.2.1984, petitioner No.2, Mr. R. Gopala, was appointed as Attender, in the Indian Institute of Science, the respondent. On 24.8.2000, consequent on merger of certain scales of pay in the scale of Rs.4000 - Rs.6,000/-, the Registrar, the respondent No.2, granted the benefit of pay scale of Rs.5,000-Rs.8,000/- to an employee, who had reached the basic pay of Rs.5,000/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.4,000- Rs.6,000/-. According to the petitioners, while petitioner No.1 reached the pay of Rs.5,000/- on 30.12.2007, the petitioner No.2, reached the said pay on 28.2.2008. Therefore, both the petitioners were claiming that the benefit under the letter dated 24.8.2000, should also be extended to them by including them in the revised pay scale of Rs.5,000-Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, on 4.12.2013, the petitioners filed their representations before respondent No.2. However, despite the lapse of almost four years, the respondent No.2 has maintained a studied silence over the representations. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. This Court has raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether any endorsement has been made with regard to the said representations or no? To the pointed query, the learned counsel has frankly conceded that the representations continues to be pending, and they have not been decided by respondent No.2.
4. To say the least, this is a sorry state of affairs where the petitioners are kept in animated suspension with regard to the representations submitted by them on 4.12.2013. Even if the petitioners are not eligible to receive the revised pay scale, as claimed by the learned counsel for the respondents, even then the respondent No.2 is legally bound to reply to the representations submitted by the petitioners. It is the laxity on the part of respondent No.2 which has forced the petitioners to knock at the doors of this Court. The inefficiency on the part of respondent No.2 is highly deprecated by this Court. In case the respondent No.2 had given personal hearing to the petitioners, and had decided their representations, either accepting, or rejecting it, this case would not have been filed before this Court.
5. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent No.2 to decide the representations dated 4.12.2013, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the respondent No.2 fails to carry out the directions of this Court, the petitioners shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings against respondent No.2 The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE *bk/-