IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.9162 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. PRAMILA W/O SRI. ARUN POOJARY, AGE 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD, BAMBOO BAZAAR, HIGH WAY CIRCLE, JAWA FACTORY ROAD, MYSURU – 570 024.
(BY SRI. H.RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... PETITIONER 2 . THE KARNATAKA SLUM CELARANCE BOARD, NO.55, RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1; SRI. M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO FIX THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER AS PER THE SCALE OF THE STENOGRAPHER FROM THE DATE OF JOINING IN TO SERVICE DTD. 3.09.1976 AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-C DTD 26.11.2010; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The grievance of the petitioner, a retired employee is against the refusal of the 2nd respondent to grant to her the incremental benefits of pay on par with one Sri.N.S.Rayappa. After service of notice, the 1st respondent is represented by Sri.M.V.Ramesh Join, AGA and the 2nd respondent is represented by Sri.M.P.Srikanth; both they resist the Writ Petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsement dated 22.01.2014 at Annexure-H is unassailable for the following reasons:
(a) in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.9172/2009, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.11.2010, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C at Para 5, observed as under:
“5. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to give the benefit of the pay scale of Stenographer to the petitioner also from the date of her initial appointment as a Typist as was given in the case of Smt.Gowramma.”
Thus, the rights of parties were decided and accordingly, the payment has also been made to the petitioner; her claim for the higher benefit cannot be acceded to merely because the aforesaid Rayappa was granted; accepting an argument on the contrary would reopen the issue that has already been concluded, as rightly stated by the 2nd respondent in it’s affidavit dated 9.7.2019;
(b) the comparative Pay Statement which the contesting respondent has produced prima facie shows that case of the petitioner is treated with on par with that of Smt.Gowramma in terms of mandamus issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court earlier and that the arrears of increments have already been paid to the petitioner; even otherwise, the case of N.S.Rayappa stands on a different footing and therefore, it cannot be a comparable unit.
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE DS