IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS W.P.Nos.32664-32665 of 2018 (S-KAT) C/W W.P.No.18847 of 2018, W.P.No.27642 of 2018 (S-KAT) In W.P.Nos.32664-32665 of 2018: BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S. V. KRISHNARAO DECEASED BY LRs:
(a) SRI S K ANAND AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE SRI S V KRISHNARAO (b) SRI S K DAYANAND AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI S V KRISHNARAO ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1678, KABBER ROAD, LASKAR MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 001.
2. SRI M.P.GOPALASWAMY S/O LATE SRI M.PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RETIRED OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT R/AT NO.1839/1, 1ST MAIN, CHAMAL MATI STREET, KABEER ROAD CROSS, LASKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001. PETITIONERS (By Sri S.M.BABU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, D.P.A.R. VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KARNATAKA RESIDENCY PARK ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. RESPONDENTS (By Miss N.ANITHA, HCGP) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NOS.7086/2014 AND A.NO.7087/2014 DATED 17.03.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
In W.P.No.18847 of 2018:
BETWEEN:
SRI H R VAGEESHAIAH S/O LATE SRI RUDRAPPAIAH.H, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RETIRED AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, R/AT NO.10, 6TH CROSS, WELLINGTON PARADISE LAYOUT, SINGASANDRA, BEGUR POST, BENGALURU-560115. ...PETITIONER (By Sri S.M.BABU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAK A REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, D.P.A.R., VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 4. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A& E) KARNATAKA, RESIDENCY PARK ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. ...RESPONDENTS (By Miss N.ANITHA , HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DATED 22.03.2017, PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.6690/2014, (6642 TO 6751/2014) AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
In W.P.No.27642 of 2018:
BETWEEN:
SRI N.SUBBARAMAIAH SON OF SRI R.NARASHIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, RETIRED REVENUE INSPECTOR, R/AT NO:2075, 6TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, SRIRAMAPURA, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570022. ...PETITIONER (By Sri S.M.BABU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECREARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, D.P.A.R. VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KARNATAKA, RESIDENCY PARK ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. ...RESPONDENTS (By Miss N.ANITHA, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU DATED 17.3.2017 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.6853/2014 (6798 TO 6897/2014) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THE ABOVE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, DEVDAS, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.7086 of 2014 and 7087 of 2014.
2. The first petitioner was working as First Division Assistant, while the second petitioner was serving as Superintendent and both of them have retired from service in the year 2000 and 2001 respectively. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Government of Karnataka has not fixed their pay and pension in accordance with Rule 4.1(i) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1994, which was revised in the year 2007 and again in the year 2012. Since the representations made by the petitioners were not considered by the State Government, Department of Revenue, the petitioners approached the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that while the relief sought by the petitioners before the Tribunal was for a direction to the respondents to consider the representations, the Tribunal has considered the matter on the question of delay and not on merits and thereafter dismissed the applications. The learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.6 of the impugned order wherein the Tribunal has discussed the question of delay and latches. On the other hand, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Smt.Saroja and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.Nos.372-387 of 2014 (S-RES) which was disposed of on 06th September of 2017. Learned counsel submits that the issue raised in the said writ petitions is similar to the one on hand. However, since the petitioners in the said writ petition were employees of the High Court, they approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The learned single Judge has considered the question that though the pay was revised on many occasions, the petitioners have sought implementation of the pay revision that was made in the year 2012. Having considered the case of the writ petitioners therein, the learned single Judge held that whether the petitioners are entitled to the revised pay-scales or not as contended by the learned counsel for the parties has to be adjudicated by the concerned Authorities, considering the representations made by the petitioners. Therefore, writ petitions were allowed while directing the respondents – State Government to consider the representations of the petitioners filed in the year 2012 on different dates and pass orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of four months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners herein seek similar directions.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the writ papers.
6. We are of the considered opinion that the request made by the petitioners seeking the benefit of the pay revision that was made in the year 2012 cannot be declined on the ground of delay and latches. Just because the petitioners have not sought for the pay revision in terms of the earlier Pay Revision Rules, it will not preclude the petitioners from seeking the benefit of a subsequent pay revision. We are in respectful agreement with the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Smt.Saroja and others (supra). We hold that it is for the respondents to consider the representations made by the petitioners as to whether they are entitled for the benefit under the pay revision of the year 2012 or even the previous pay revisions.
7. In the light of the above, we allow the writ petitions while setting aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.7086 of 2014 and 7087 of 2014.
We hereby direct the Respondents – State Government and the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Karnataka to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE DH