Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Ramanaik on 28 March, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.23691 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA -577542.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.B. RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP)
AND:
SRI. RAMANAIK
S/O KRISHNA NAIK
ASST. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION
HOSADURGA TALUK
2
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE
SMT LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O SRIRAMPURA
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
....RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.02.2018 IN
APPLICATION NO. 7559/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE - A. AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the State and its
officers seeking issue of a writ of certiorari quashing
the order dated 07.02.2018 passed in Application
No.7559/2013 by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal.
2. The above application was filed by deceased
respondent, viz., Sri.Ramanaik, challenging the order
dated 01.10.2011 passed by the Petitioner
No.3/Respondent No.3 therein re-fixing his pay
entitlements from 01.07.1993 onwards and for
direction to re-fix his salary as per the salary drawn by
his juniors and reimburse amount recovered by the
respondents.
3. The deceased respondents had joined the
Department of Home on 09.09.1997 as a Civil Police
Constable and he attained superannuation on
31.07.2014 and retired from service. He passed away
on 12.12.2018. During the course of his employment,
he was granted one-time stepping up salary in the year
1992 and apparently, at the request of the deceased
respondent, a second-time stepping-up was also
granted on 12.06.1994. The granting of second time
stepping-up of salary came to the knowledge of the
petitioners during the accounts audited by the office of
the Director General and Inspector General of Police,
Karnataka. Accordingly, Petitioner No.3/Respondent
No.3 had issued order seeking to re-fix the pay-scale
of the respondent as a second time stepping up salary
granted on 12.06.1994 was against the Government
notification dated 01.10.1984. Consequently, memo
was issued asking for recovery of Rs.56,238/- on a
monthly installment basis at Rs.3,750/-. In response
thereof, deceased-respondent had given a
representation dated 16.12.2011 explaining that no
such second time stepping up of pay-scale had been
granted and that presently his juniors were drawing a
salary of Rs.13,000/-. As such, he requested to
reconsider grant of salary of Rs.14,000/-. During the
pendency of the said request, the amount has been
recovered from the salary and the salary has been re-
fixed. Being aggrieved by the same, the deceased
respondent preferred the above Application
No.7559/2013 before the Tribunal.
4. It was contended by the deceased
respondent/applicant before the Tribunal that his re-
fixation of salary was done by his superiors almost 15
years back and that there was no misrepresentation or
any wrong submission made by him at that stage. As
he was nearing retirement, any re-fixation and
recovery of arrears would cause him undue hardship.
The Tribunal relying upon the Judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
vs. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) (AIR 2015
SCW 501), allowed the application in part declining to
interfere with the impugned order dated 01.12.2011
passed by Respondent No.3 in so far as it relates to re-
fixation of salary was concerned. However, it was
ordered that if the amount had been recovered based
on the said order, the same was directed to be
refunded to the deceased respondent within four
months from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are
before this Court.
5. Heard learned HCGP.
6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
learned HCGP submitted that the Tribunal erred in
disregarding the audit review by the office of the Police
Chief questioning the second-time stepping up of the
salary of the deceased respondent. It is contended
that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
RAFIQ MASIH supra was not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the case. Thereby, the Tribunal
erred in partly allowing the application and directing
refund of the amount recovered.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent who
was in service of the petitioners retired on 31.07.2014
after having attained superannuation and he passed
away on 12.12.2018. The present petition is filed
against the deceased respondent represented by his
wife Smt.Lakshmamma. The Tribunal in the facts and
circumstances of the case, considering the hardship
that would be caused to the dependants of the
deceased respondent on account of recovering the
amount, allegedly paid by the petitioner, directed the
petitioners to refund the amount recovered if any. As
regards the re-fixation of the salary made by Petitioner
No.3/Respondent No.3 effective from 01.07.1993, the
Tribunal has declined to pass any orders thereon.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the above
case, as taken note of by the Tribunal and in view of
subsequent development, viz., the death of the
deceased respondent, we are of the considered opinion
that the order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant
any interference. No grounds made out by the
petitioners. Hence, the Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bnv
