Disposed

Smt Rekha v. the Director

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2020WP/26619/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought Writ jurisdiction for parity in pay with similarly situated regular employees under equal pay principles. The court directed respondents to consider pending representations and pass appropriate orders within six months without delving into merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to consider representations regarding equal pay and pass appropriate orders within six months.

Smt Rekha Vs the Director — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.26619/2018 (S - RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT.REKHA W/O GURURAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC.: COMPUTER OPERATOR, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AT SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 429.

¶8

SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC.:EX.TEACHER, SHISHU VIHARA, AT SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 429.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V.V.TOWER, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201.

¶14

¶15

THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AT SORABA – 577 429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING);

¶17

SRI M.R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONERS IN THE POSTS WHICH THEY HOLD EARLIER AND CONTINUE IN THE SERVICE TILL THEIR RETIREMENT ON ATTUNING AGE OF SUPERANNUATION AS PER GOVT. ORDER NO.UDD 76 BMS 2007, BENGALURU DATED 19.10.2007 VIDE ANNX-C ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a

¶22

direction to the respondents to consider their case in terms of representations at Annexures-F and J dated 19.9.2015 and 26.3.2018 respectively, seeking parity in pay with the similarly situated employees of the respective Municipalities where they are working on daily wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

¶23

¶24

The petitioners claim to have been appointed ranging between the year 1996 and 2003 and further claim to have been functioning in the posts that they were appointed as typist and teacher on contract basis and have been functioning in their respective posts pursuant to the aforestated appointments for more than 15 years. It is the allegation of the petitioners that they have not been paid salary on par with regular employees holding corresponding posts in the Government and have given representations on 19.9.2015 and 23.6.2018 to the respondents herein, claiming salary on par with regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

¶25

The learned AGA appearing for the respondents herein would submit that the authorities are yet to determine the entitlement of the petitioners in answer to the representations given by them. He would submit that the representations would be considered expeditiously.

¶26

¶27

Therefore, without going into the merits of the

¶28

claim of the petitioners, I am of the considered view that writ petition be disposed directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioners at Annexures-F and J dated 19.9.2015 and 26.3.2018 respectively and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

CT:MJ

Smt Rekha v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rekha v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs Shri D.Krishnappa

The Commissioner Vs Mrs.Asumptha Maia D Souza

The Commissioner the Corporation of City of Vs Smt.K.v.Kalyani

S Somalingaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. D. S. Venkateshmurthy Vs the State of Karnataka