Allowed

Suresh S/O. F Desai v. the Secretary to Govt

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2021WP/106030/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed writ petitions challenging orders that reduced the pay scales of municipal corporation employees to match government employees and sought to recover excess pay. Relying on coordinate precedents, the court quashed the refixation orders and mandated restoration of the petitioners' pay and benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed; impugned orders (dated 11.7.2012, 12.7.2012) and consequent orders quashed; writ of mandamus commanding restoration of pay scale/emoluments to pre-11.7.2012 status and release of

Suresh S/O. F Desai Vs the Secretary to Govt — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP Nos.106030 - 106039/2014 (S-RES)

¶7

Between

¶8

Suresh s/o Desai Aged about 55 years Occ: SDA r/o Near Kalmeshwar Temple Kurubara Oni at Koliwad Hubballi District Dharwad.

¶9

Sri Ramesh s/o Kariyappa Sambrani Aged about 33 years Occ: SDA r/o 1^st Cross, Ambedkar colony Ayodhya Nagar, Hubballi District Dharwad.

¶10

Smt.Manjula w/o Ramachandra Natekar Aged about 52 years Occ: SDA r/o #6, Second Phase Ashwamedha Nagar Navnagar, Hubballi District Dharwad.

¶11

Sri Hanumesh G Benakanhalli Aged about 49 years Occ: SDA r/o Karki Basaveshwar nagar, Hubballi District Dharwad.

¶12

¶13

Smt.Shanthkumari P Utukuri Aged about 52 years Occ: SDA r/o Jannat Nagar, 3^rd Cross, Vidyagiri District Dharwad. 6. Smt.Farabai H Khadrapur Aged about 52 years Occ: SDA r/o Jannat Nagar, 3^rd Cross, Vidyagiri District Dharwad. 7. Sri Ramachandra C Ratnakar Aged about 43 years Occ: Bill Collector r/o #21/1, 7^th Cross Karki Baswashewar Nagar, Hubballi District Dharwad. 8. Sri Anil G Parvathi Aged about 42 years Occ: SDA r/o 310B Pitru Chaya Siddrama Nagar Gopankoppa, Hubballi District Dharwad. 9. Sri Shankar Gangappa Chalvadi Aged about 43 years Occ: Bill Collector r/o Ambedkar Colony Ayodhya Nagar District Dharwad. 10. Sri J K Hosalli, Aged about 30 years Occ: SDA, r/o Bannurmath Road Behind Masjid, District Dharwad. ...Petitioners (By Sri R H Angadi & Smt.Gayatri S R, Advocates)

¶14

¶15

A n d

¶16

The Secretary to Government Urban Development M S Building, Veedhana Veedhi Bengaluru-560001.

¶17

The Director, Municipal Administration, Viveshwaraiah Tower, Veedhana Veedhi Bengaluru-560001.

¶18

The Chief Accounts Officer Hubli – Dharwad Municipal Corporation, Hubli - 580001.

¶19

The Chief Auditor Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation Hubli-580001.

¶20

The Assistant Commissioner (Admn) Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation Hubli-580001.

¶21

The Commissioner Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation Hubli-580001. 7. Additional Revenue Officer, Hubli Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation Hubli – Dharwad-01. ..Respondents (By Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, AGA for R1 & R2, Sri G I Gachchinmath, Advocate for R3, R5 and R6) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order No.HDMC/40/01/12-13 passed by respondent No.6 dated

¶22

¶23

12.07.2012 vide Annexures-D and D1 and the subsequent orders at Anenxures-E to E10 etc.,.

¶24

These writ petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice

¶27

for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶28

Petitioners were appointed as Group-B and Group-C employees respectively by the respondent-Corporation. The pay scale of the petitioners was fixed in terms of the provisions contained in Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The pay scale that was extended to the employees of the corporation was higher than the pay scale of the similarly situated employees appointed by the Government. So as to set right the anomaly, the respondents - Corporation passed an order refixing the salary of the petitioners as well as other similarly situated persons on par with the pay scale extended to the government employees. Further, by the impugned order the amount alleged to have been paid in excess was sought to be recovered from the petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶31

that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in identical matters in WP No.8282/2008 and connected matters (DD 23.2.2011) and WP No.72257/2012 (DD 27.6.2013) has held that the refixation of the pay scale of the petitioners is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the alleged excess amount cannot be recovered from the petitioners since the alleged excess amount was not paid at the instance of the petitioners. Hence, he submits that the writ petitions may be allowed by quashing the impugned order.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the refixation of the pay scale of the petitioners and also recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference.

¶33

¶34

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate reiterates

¶35

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Corporation and seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶36

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the pay scale of the petitioners was extended in terms of the provisions contained in Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and the pay scale extended to the petitioners was higher than the pay scale extended to similarly situated employees of the government. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.8282/2008 and connected matters has held that the refixation of the similarly situated persons is not sustainable in law. The alleged excess amount paid by the Corporation was not due to the fault of the petitioners. Hence, the recovery of alleged amount is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the above factual position of law.

¶38

¶39

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is

¶40

already examined by this Court and it was held that the refixation of the pay scale of the employees of the Corporation and the recovery of the excess amount is not sustainable in law, these writ petitions require to be disposed of in the light of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.8282/2008 and connected matters (DD 23.2.2011) and WP No.72257/2012 (DD 27.6.2013). Even otherwise the order dated 11.7.2012 passed by respondent – Corporation is withdrawn by order dated 16.8.2014 in the light of the order passed in WP No.8282/2008. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) Writ petitions stand allowed; ii) The impugned orders dated 11.7.2012 and 12.7.2012 passed by respondent No.6 vide Annexures-D and D1 and consequent order passed by respondent No.7 vide Annexure-E are hereby quashed;

¶43

iii) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents No.3 to 6 to restore the pay scale and emoluments of the petitioners as it stood prior to 11.7.2012 and

¶44

¶45

release the service benefits to the petitioners. The said exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

bkm

Suresh S/O. F Desai v. the Secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh S/O. F Desai v. the Secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Govind S/O Ramappa Lamani Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Seethamma W/O. Dyamappa Kuri Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.Rajashree Ravishankar Vs the Principal Secretary

A.B.Mahishi S/O. Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Rohini G Munavalli Vs the Secretary to Govt

B.Prakash S/O B. Yallappa Vs Director Hrd