IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.2924 OF 2014 (S - R) BETWEEN SMT. RANGANAYAKI, WIFE OF LATE SRI. K.R.GOPAL IYENGAR, AGED 60 YEARS, CARE OF V VALLISH, ARAKANATHA ROAD, K.R.NAGAR, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 602. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. T.N.RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VISHVESHWARAIAH BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.
3. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, K.R. NAGAR, MYSURU – 571 602. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.50657 OF 2013 DATED 07.10.2014.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH. J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The case of the appellant is that her husband was employed as a Tollgate peon in the year 1970. He attained superannuation on 31.10.1998. In 2011, he requested his employer to recalculate his monthly wages from the year 1970 to 31.10.1998 on the ground that in identical circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court had granted relief to similarly placed persons. Nothing came of the representation. In the meantime, the husband of the appellant died. Hence, she filed the instant writ petition. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay. Hence, this appeal.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay. That even though the employee died in the year 2013, a representation was already made much earlier to that. Therefore, the question of holding that there was delay is in appropriate.
3. The same is disputed by the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief requires to be granted.
5. The material on record indicates that a request for recalculation of the monthly entitlement was made by the appellant’s husband in the year 2011. Nothing came of it. Therefore, only because the respondents slept over the representation made, cannot be held against the appellant. If the request was made belatedly, then the same could have been rejected on the ground of delay. However, the fact would indicate otherwise. The respondent was duty bound to consider the representation of the employee, which was made in the year 2011. Therefore, we are of the view that dismissing the writ petition on delay is inappropriate.
6. So far as the merits are concerned, reliance is placed on the Government Order dated 09.02.2011. In terms of the said Government order as well as the ad-idem dated 18.07.2011, in terms whereof, the benefit of the Government Order dated 26.08.2008 was extended even to the non SSLC employees who are in the pay scale of Rs.80-145/- as on 01.01.1970. As regards the applicable scale of Rs.90-200/-, the contention of the Respondent is that the employee was not in the said scale as on 01.01.1970. Therefore, the revised pay scale cannot be granted to him.
7. On hearing the learned counsels, we are unable to accept the said contention. The revised scale of pay would be applicable only with effect from 01.01.1970, which does not indicate that one must have drawn that scale as on 01.01.1970. Therefore, as and when the employee enters the scale of Rs.80-145/-, it is from that date onwards, he would be entitled for the revised pay scale. Therefore, the plea of the respondents on this ground cannot be accepted. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Respondents should be directed to consider the plea of the employee from the date on which he entered the scale of Rs.80-145/-.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.50657 of 2013 is set aside. The Appeal is allowed in the following terms:-
Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the deceased employee for grant of pay in the scale of Rs.90-200/- with effect from the date he entered the pay scale of Rs.80-145/-. It is needless to state that the arrears if any, shall carry interest of 6% p.a. in view of long lapse of time. Since the death of an employee was in the year 2013, the respondent is directed to settle the said claim within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Srl.