IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.19749 OF 2013 (S-RES) & WRIT PETITION NOs.23251-52 OF 2013(S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Shankar S/o Chikkaventaramanappa, Aged about 51 years, Working as Compositor, Printing Press, Bangalore University, Bangalore-560056.
2. G.N.Shivanna S/o Narasappa Aged about 54 years, Working as Compositor, Printing Press, Bangalore University, Bangalore-560056.
3. S.T.Raju S/o M.Shankara, Aged about 47 years, Working as Assistant, Cameraman Cum Plate Maker, Bangalore University, Bangalore-560056. ... Petitioners (By Sri. K.Shrihari, Advocate for Lex Justicia) AND:
1. Government of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Education, M.S.Building, Bangalore-560001.
2. The Bangalore University, Represented by its Registrar, Gnana Bharathi, Bangalore-560056. ... Respondents (By Sri. Sridhar N.Hegde, HCGP for R1, Sri. B.Pramod, Advocate for R2) These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 12.3.2008 vide Annexure-R passed by R2 as against the Art 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for Hearing on I.A. this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The matter is coming up for hearing on I.A.No.1/2018 filed by the petitioners seeking early hearing of the matter. With the consent of the learned counsel from both the sides, the matter is heard and disposed of finally. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2018 is disposed off.
2. The petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Bangalore and were called for practical test and interview by respondent No.2-University, for the post of Compositors and Assistant Cameraman cum Plate Maker. It is submitted that the petitioners were successful and they were appointed on consolidated pay instead of regular pay scale. The petitioners contend that they have been making several representations to the respondent No.2-University to grant them appropriate pay scale from the date of initial appointment i.e. from the date when respondent No.2 appointed them, regularize their services in Group–D category and accord them pay scale of Group-D post. Since, the representations have not been considered, the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.No.20323-338/1999, which was disposed of on 14.07.1999, directing respondent No.2-University to set right the anomaly.
3. On 06.12.1999, respondent No.2-University passed an order treating the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as Group – C employees and accordingly sanctioned Group-C pay scales only from 06.10.1999, instead of the date of initial appointment. Petitioner No.3 was treated as Group- C employee from 13.06.2000 and pay scale was accorded only from 13.06.2000. The petitioners made several representations to respondent No.2-University to accord the pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. On 30.11.2005, respondent No.2-University accorded group–C pay scales to the petitioners with effect from 01.11.1994 but extended monetary benefit only from 15.11.2005. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.3485/2008, which was allowed on 10.03.2008 and a direction was given to respondent No.2-University to consider the representations made by the petitioners.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even before the order dated.10.03.2008 was communicated to respondent No.2–University, on 10.03.2008, respondent No.2-University issued an endorsement to the petitioners, declining their request. Subsequently on going through the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.3485/2008, respondent No.2- University issued one more endorsement rejecting the claim of the petitioners stating that as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs SHEELA RANI, reported in (2007)-15-SCC-
230, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered from the date of initial appointment. Respondent No.2- University took up the order passed in W.P.No.3485/2018 in appeal before the division bench and the same was dismissed.
5. The petitioners have pointed out that in the case of Smt. C.Nagarathna, who was a Typist in respondent No.2-University, the university has considered her representation and extended the pay scales attached to the Typist cadre from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 12.04.1989 till her service was regularized as Typist as on 17.11.1994. The petitioners have also pointed out that respondent No.2-University has issued an order fixing the pay scales with regular increments from the date of initial appointments. It is submitted by the petitioners that they were not aware of these orders which were passed in favour of similarly situated employees of the University. On coming to know of these orders, the petitioners have once again submitted representations to the respondent No.2-
University seeking extension of the benefit that was granted to similarly situated employees of the University. The Representation is at Annexure – T, dated 10.01.2013. Since, respondent No.2-University has failed to consider the requests of the petitioners, they have approached this Court.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2- University submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is also submitted that the endorsement was issued to the petitioners in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs SHEELA RANI (Supra).
7. The contentions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2-University cannot be accepted for the reasons that if the case of similarly situated employees have been considered favourably, there cannot be a reason for the University to discriminate between two employees, who are similarly situated. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petition requires to be allowed, while directing the respondent No.2-University to consider the representations made by the petitioners, especially the representation dated 10.01.2013 at Annexure – T.
8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed. Respondent No.2-University is directed to reconsider the representation dated 10.01.2013 at Annexure – T and pass the order in the light of the observation made herein above, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
KTY.
Sd/- JUDGE