Karnataka High Court
Shri.Anand Pawar S/O Late Sri.Gopall ... vs Karnataka University on 13 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14607
WP No. 108231 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 108231 OF 2018 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ANAND PAWAR S/O. LATE SRI. GOPALL PAWAR
SINCE DECEASED, NOW REP BY LRS,
1. SMT. RUKMINI W/O. LATE ANAND PAWAR
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RES: "MATHOSHREE SADAN", 3RD CROSS,
SADANKERI, DHARWAD-580008.
2. SRI. DATTATREYA S/O. LATE ANAND PAWAR
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
RES: "MATHOSHREE SADAN", 3RD CROSS,
SADANKERI, DHARWAD-580008
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARAYAN G. RASALKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
MOHANKUMAR PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD-580003,
B SHELAR
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B 2. THE FINANCE OFFICER,
SHELAR
Date: 2023.12.14
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
15:39:01 +0530 PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD-580003.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
(HIGHER EDUCATION), M. S. BUILDING,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGLAURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. SACHIN KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1
SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R3,
NOTICE TO RESP. NO. 2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14607
WP No. 108231 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT (IN THE NATURE OF DECLARATION OF
OTHERWISE) QUASHING, THE REVISION/FIXATION OF PAY SCALE
SANCTIONED TO THE PETITIONER, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.01.1997,
VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.KU/SNT/6/82-83/3000 DATED 26TH JUNE,
1982 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA
UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD, AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ALSO THE
CONSEQUENTIAL IMPGUNED LETTER NO. KAVIVI/CAASUVI/
SHIKSHAKETAR/6/2017/874 DATED 10.10.2017 OF THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 REGISTRAR OF KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, AS PER ANNEXURE-O,
BEING ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND DISCRIMINATORY AND BEING
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 13, 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA READ WITH ARTICLE 12 THEREOF, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3
TO CAUSE TO REVISE AND/OR REFIX THE SCALE OF THE PETITIONER
BY RAISING IT TO RS. 500-1120 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.01.1997 AND
GRANT HIM BENEFITS OF SUCH FITMENT IN ALL THE SUBSEQUENT PAY
REVISIONS AS WELL BASED ON ABOVE SAID SCALE INCLUDING
PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES AND OTHER
MONITORY AND OTHER BENEFITS DUE TO THE PETITIONER COMPUTED
FROM THE DATES OF ELIGIBILITY AS PER THE STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-P ALONG WITH
12% INTEREST ON THE MONITORY DUES PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER,
CALCULATED FOR THE PERIOD OF DELAY TILL FINAL PAYMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14607
WP No. 108231 of 2018
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Advocate
appearing for respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner is questioning Annexure-O dated
10.10.2017, wherein the petitioner requesting to
reconsider re-fixing his pay pursuant to the order passed
in Writ Petition No.30280/2008, is rejected.
3. Admitted facts from the records would reveal
that the petitioner joined the services of 1st respondent-
University on 17.11.1962. The pay scale was revised from
time to time. He retired on 31.12.1993. The petitioner
claims that the pay was revised by the State from time to
time pursuant to the recommendation of the Pay
Commission. Since the recommendation is not made
applicable to the petitioner and like, the matter was taken
to the Apex Court in K.T.Veerappa and Others. Vs.
State of Karnataka and others, 2006(9) SCC 406. The
Apex Court vide order dated 12.04.2006 pursuant to the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14607
undertaking given by the State, wherein the State has
agreed to extend the benefit of the pay commission
recommendation to the employee of the University.
Despite the said undertaking, the benefit was not given to
the petitioner, who was admittedly the employee of the
University.
4. One S.G.Kudachimath, an employee of the
University approached this Court in W.P.No.30280/2008
seeking the benefit of recommendation of the Pay
Commission. This Court initiating the said writ petition,
passed the order which is marked at Annexure-K and
directed the respondent-University to take necessary steps
keeping in mind, the undertaking recorded in paragraph
16 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of K.T.Veerappa referred supra.
5. Since, the petitioner is also an employee of the
very same University, the petitioner on 13.08.2017 and
20.11.2017 filed an application to the respondent-
University to re-fix his salary in line with the judgment
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14607
rendered to S.G.Kudachimath referred to above. The
respondent-University vide Annexure-O issued
endorsement stating that the relief granted in the case of
S.G.Kudachimath, is only confined to the prayer made by
S.G.Kudachimath and the same benefit cannot be
extended to the petitioner.
6. Sri.Narayan G. Rasalkar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner would contend that the State
has given an undertaking to the Apex Court in the case of
K.T.Veerappa that benefit of the recommendation of the
Pay Commission would be extended to all the employees
of the University. This being the position, the University is
under the obligation to forward the recommendation to
respondent No.3 by re-fixing pay scale as per the
recommendation of the Pay Commission.
7. Under these circumstances, Annexure-O is
liable to be quashed and is quashed. The respondents
No.1 and 2 are directed to forward the proposal for re-
fixing the pay scale of the petitioner to the concerned
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14607
Department in the Government and thereafter
consequential benefits have to be granted to the
petitioner. Since the order at Annexure-D is the order
fixing pay without granting benefit of Pay Commission
recommendation, the same is quashed.
8. The exercise shall be carried out within 3
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Writ
petition is allowed.
9. Though Annexure-D is quashed, as the pay is
wrongly fixed, the pay fixed at Annexure-D shall be
continued to be paid till it is re-fixed in terms of the
observations made above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK/ct-an
