IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR WRIT PETITION No. 12829/2016(S-RES) Between:
Sri Ramesh Mokashi S/o Nagendra Rao Mokashi Aged about 61 years Retd. Deputy Manager (Accounts) Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation, Bangalore R/at No.176-A, 4th Block 3rd Main Road, Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 010.
... Petitioner (By Sri. Vijay Kumar - Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Commerce and Industries Department Vikasa Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director Priyadarshini Weaver Bhavan Vidyanagar, Hubli – 580031 Dharwad District.
3. The Managing Director Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation, Branch Office No.1, Tank Road Priyadarshini Commercial Complex Halasur Bangalore – 560 042.
... Respondents (By Sri. T S Mahantesh – AGA for R-1;
Sri B S Murali – Advocate for R-2 and R-3) ****** This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to, direct the respondents to consider the representations dated 16.11.2011 and 09.04.2012 at Annex-E and F of the petitioner seeking Step- up his pay equal to that of his junior officer w.e.f 01.04.2009 within the time frame specified by this Hon’ble court.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 16.11.2011 and 9.4.2012 as per Annexures – E and F, seeking stepping up of his pay equal to that of his junior officer w.e.f. 01.04.2009 within the time frame specified this court.
3. It is stated in the writ petition that petitioner was initially appointed as First Division Clerk on 1.4.1976 in the second respondent Corporation and subsequently promoted to the post of Accounts Assistant in the year 1980. Thereafter, as Accounts Officer in the year 1989 and further on 27.10.1992 the petitioner was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer. As per the Recruitment Rules of the Corporation the next higher post was Deputy Manager (Accounts) and the basis for promotion to the said post was by seniority in the cadre of senior Accounts Officer. By order dated 9.6.2011 as per Annexure-B, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Manager (Accounts) along with his junior Sri.C.Nagaraj in the revised scale of pay in the band of Rs.15200-25650.
4. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that Sri.C.Nagaraj and the petitioner were working in the same cadre of Deputy Manager (Accounts) and that Sri.C.Nagaraj is junior to him in the seniority and is drawing more salary than that of the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has submitted representations dated 16.11.2011 and 9.4.2012 as per Annexures-E and F to the second respondent to step-up his pay equal to that of his junior. As there was no response from the respondents the instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
5. It is further the case of the petitioner that under identical circumstances, on the basis of representation made by one Sri K.Gopalakrishna, Accounts Assistant, the respondents have considered the claim for stepping up of his pay on part with his junior Sri B.R.Balaraju, Accounts Assistant. Further, in support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1995 (5) SCC 625 (M.R.Gupta Vs. Union of India and another) wherein it is held that “pay fixation was not in accordance with Rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules.”
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that representations as per Annexure-E and F relating to step up of pay of petitioner to that of junior will be considered in accordance with law.
7. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel on both side and at a cursory glance of the grounds urged in the writ petition and so also, the reasons assigned in the representations as per Annexures-E and F, it is just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the representations in accordance with law by fixing a time frame.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to the consider the representations made by the petitioner on 16.11.2011 and 9.4.2012 as per Annexures-E and F in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce any other relevant documents, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
DKB Sd/- JUDGE