IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 9687 OF 2018 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 9686 OF 2018 (S-RES) & WRIT PETITION NOS. 10987-11006/2018 IN W.P. NO. 9687/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT SUMATHI K S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O SRI.P.NARASIMHA BHAT, WORKING AS A TYPIST AT SRI KUKKE SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.11-64B, SHIVAPRIYA NILAYA, NOOCHILA SUBRAMANYA, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY MUJARAI DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT (MUJURAI DEPARTMENT) 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN, ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI KUKKE SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
4. HEAD QUARTER ASSISTANT, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN, ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. C N MAHADESHWARA, AGA FOR R1,2 &4; SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CIRCULAR DATED 03.10.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., IN W.P. NO. 9686/2018 & W.P. NOS. 10987-11006/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. DEVAKI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O GOVINDA, R/AT BALAGADAKERI, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TAUK, DAKSHINAKANNADA-574238.
2. CHETHAN B AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SUBRAYA GOWDA, R/AT BATTE, MEENADI, KADABA POST, KUTRUPADI, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574221.
3. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O K KRISHNA BHAT, R/AT NAGAPPA HITHILU, NUCHILA, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
4. BALAKI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O BABU, R/AT ARGUDI HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA POST, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
5. BHUVANESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O LATE OADMANABHA GOWDA, R/AT DEVARAGADDHE HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
6. PADMAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O MONAPPA NAIK, R/AT SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
7. SAVITHA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, R/AT ADI SUBRAMANYA, SUBRAMANYA., SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
8. SAVITHRI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O VASANTHA GOWDA, R/AT DEVARAGADDHE HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
9. DINESH K S, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SRINIVASAIAH, R/AT "SANTRUPTHI", NUCHILA HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
10. SUDHAKAR BHAT, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SUBRAYA, R/AT INJADI HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
11. SHIVAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O NANRAPPA GOWDA, R/AT KANKAL, KENYA POST, SULYA POST, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574232.
12. SARASWATHI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O THAMBA NAYAR, R/AT DEVARAGADDHE HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
13. LEELAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O MOHANA NAMBIYAR, R/AT DEVARAGADDHE HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
14. PADMAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O SOMASHEKARA, R/AT NEAR KASHIKATTE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
15. KRISHNAPRASAD K G, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE K GANAPATHI BHAT, R/AT "PRASAD NILAYA"
VALALAMBE, GUTHIGARU POST & VILLAGE, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574218.
16. P GOVINDA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O P V PARAMESHWAR BHAT, R/AT SUCHILA HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
17. SURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O RAMANNA MALEKUDIYA, R/AT DEVARAGADDHE HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
18. KAMALA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O CHOMA, R/AT VALAGADAKERI, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
19. MALATHI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O CHENKRA, R/AT KALLAPANE HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
20. SUBBAMMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT AMBODI, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
21. LOKESH M R, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE RAGHU SHERIGAR, R/.AT DEVARAGADDHE HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY MUJARAI DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT (MUJURAI DEPARTMENT) 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN, ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE-560018 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI KUKKE SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE, SUBRAMANAYA, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238 4. HEAD QUARTER ASSISTANT, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN, ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R, AAG FOR SRI. C N MAHADESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, 2 & 4; SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CIRCULAR DATED 03.10.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners in these writ petitions are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court in a sense, for assailing the action of the respondents in not extending to them the pay scales admissible to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees of the State Government; they have sought for quashing of the impugned endorsements whereby their request for the grant of the said pay scales have been rejected.
2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance and have filed the Statements of Objections resisting the writ petitions; learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Subramanya R made his submissions on behalf of the official respondents; Smt. Vaishali Hegde, the Panel Counsel made submissions on behalf of the respondent – Temples.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) the Circular dated 31.10.2012 which provides for extension of the pay scales in question specifically conditions that it enures to the benefit of only the permanent employees of the Temples in question; the material produced by the petitioners does not prima facie establish that they are the permanent employees, their claim for regularization/absorption having been negatived by the jurisdictional authority; the Official Memorandum dated 04.01.2007 at Annexure-F to the W.P.No.9686/2018 etc., itself states that they are working on consolidated wage basis; same is the case with other petitioners too;
(b) the contention of the petitioners that all they have been working since very long and similarly placed employees in other Temples have been extended the subject pay scales pursuant to the aforesaid Circular and therefore, they too should be granted the same benefit on the principle of parity falls foul of law; in fact, the subject Circular has been withdrawn vide Memorandum dated 22.08.2019 on the ground that the same was not issued by the respondent – Commissioner for Muzarai Department, a copy whereof is placed on record by the learned AAG vide Memo dated 19.11.2019; the other reason stated for such withdrawal is that the Government has promulgated the concerned Rules vide amendment Notification dated17.07.2019, which is not in challenge;
(c) the reliance of the petitioners on the Division Bench (at Dharwad Bench) decision dated 11.09.2019 in W.A.No.100489/2019 & other connected matters, does not come to their aid, inasmuch as, it cannot be treated as the precedent in the absence of any specific ratio having been laid down therein; this apart, the judgment of the learned single judge dated 18.01.2016 in W.P. No. 35143/2014 which the petitioners bank upon for buttressing their claim has already been recalled vide order dated 09.06.2017, of course, with leave to re-agitate the issue;
petitioners cannot much derive benefit from the Division Bench decision, without showing the matching fact matrix;
(d) the contention of the petitioners that the official respondents have extended the benefit of subject pay scales to the similarly circumstanced ‘D’ Category employees working at Tirupathi Thirumala Temple in Andhra Pradesh also does not much help them since the employees of the Temples located outside the State are governed by a different set of Service Rules promulgated under the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, as rightly contended by the Panel Counsel, Smt. Vaishali Hegde;
(e) the petitioners cannot claim benefit of a Circular issued by the Commissioner for Muzarai Department without showing its justiceability by showing the provision of law which animates it the elements of enforceability; as already mentions above, this aspect of the matter has not been discussed by the Division Bench at Dharwad in its aforesaid decision; this apart, when the Rules promulgated under the 1997 Act hold the field as to the conditions of service and said Rules having been amended vide Notification dated 17.07.2019, the rights of the employees are governed by the said Rules and not by some Circular which apparently lacks legal elements; further, it has been a long settled position of law that in the case of conflict between the Rules and the Circular, the former prevail over the latter;
(f) the contentions of the petitioners that the decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF UP Vs. ARAVIND KUMAR SRIVATSAVA, (2015) 1 SCC 347, again does not come to their help; at para 22.2 it has been observed that similarly circumstanced persons cannot be denied benefit of a judgment on the ground that they were not the litigants before the Court; this would have come to their help if the petitioners could establish that their case is in all fours matches that in the judgment of the Division Bench at Dharwad; and, (g) similarly, the decision of the Apex Court in SABHA SHANKER DUBE VS. DFO & OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10956/2018 decided on 14.11.2018, too does not come to the aid of the petitioners inasmuch as they are not the temporary employees but only consolidated wage earners, who stand on a different footing; it hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition that it actually lays down and not for all that which logically follows therefrom vide QUINN VS. LETHAM (1901) A.C. 495, 506.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions being devoid of merits, are dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/