Allowed

Fakirappa S/O. Mallappa Kurbar v. the Hubballi Dharwad Municipal

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2021WP/106703/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the reduction of the petitioner's pay scale and recovery of excess salary after the municipal corporation disputed the date of regularization of his daily wages service. The court relied on a Supreme Court precedent regarding regularization of daily wage employees post-1989, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the refund of the deducted amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; direction to refund Rs.24,016/- with 6% p.a. interest; directed restoration of pay scale and re-fixation of pension.

Fakirappa S/O. Mallappa Kurbar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP NO 106703 OF 2015 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

FAKIRAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA KURBAR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O. KANVIHONNAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S N RAJENDRA, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI

¶13

2 . THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-20

¶14

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-20

¶15

¶16

THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-20

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DHARWAD.

¶18

THE CHIEF AUDITOR, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF AUDITOR, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-20

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.C V ANGADI, ADV. FOR R1 R2 R3 R4 AND R6; R5 SERVED)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER'S BG NO'S. HDMC/9101/08-09 DATED: NIL.9.2008 PASSED BY 5TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. B) ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BG NO'S. HDC/318/AUY/2009/491 DATED: 16/22.05.2009 PASSED BY 6TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on

¶26

18/05/1978 as coolie by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner’s service was regularized with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of service as coolie on daily wage basis with effect from the order dated 08/04/1994 at AnnexureA passed by the respondent-Corporation. Petitioner was entitled for 10 years time bound scale and 15 years time bound scale, and the pay scale was revised by the respondent-Corporation by extending benefits of 10 years time bound scale and 15 years time bound scale. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2008.

¶27

When things stood thus, the 5th respondent reduced the pay scale of the petitioner on the ground that the 6th respondent raised objection that the petitioner’s services was regularized with effect from 18/11/1995 and as such, the petitioner was not entitled for benefit of 10

¶28

¶29

years time bound scale and 15 years time bound scale. Hence, this writ petition.

¶30

The Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶31

submit that the respondent-corporation has committed an error in reckoning the date of regularization of service of the petitioner as 18/11/1995 when admittedly petitioner’s service was regularized with effect from the date of completion of 10 years service i.e. on 18/05/1988. Hence, he submits that respondent-Corporation committed error in reducing the pay scale of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner’s service was regularized with effect from 18/11/1995.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents would

¶33

submit that petitioner’s service was regularized with effect from 18/11/1995 which is evident from the service records. Hence, he submits that petitioner was not entitled for 10 years time bound scale and 15 years time bound scale,

¶34

¶35

since he had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of extension of the said benefit. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶36

I have considered the submission made by the

¶37

learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was

¶39

appointed on daily wage basis on 18/05/1978 and his service was regularized by respondent No.1 on 8/4/1994 at Annexure-A. Perusal of the order dated 8/4/1994 at Annexure-A indicates that the petitioner’s service was regularized with effect from 10 years from the date of completion of his service on daily wage basis. Hence, petitioner was appointed in the year 1978. Having regard to

¶40

the fact that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages

¶41

basis on 18/05/1978, service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of service on daily wage basis. Hence, petitioner’s

¶42

¶43

service was regularized in the year 1988. However, the respondent-Corporation by reckoning the date of regularization of service as 18/11/1995 has reduced the pay scale and consequently deducted Rs.24,016/- towards recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner. The pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced on the ground that the petitioner has attained superannuation in supernumerary post which did not merge with the sanctioned vacant post.

¶44

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharwad DISTT. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others V/s. State of Karnataka and

¶45

others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 396 at paragraph No.23 has held that daily rated employees who have completed

¶46

ten years of service by December 31, 1989, shall immediately be regularized with effect from January 1, 1990 on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability.

¶47

¶48

Respondent-Corporation in the light of decision

¶49

of the Dharwad DISTT. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others supra has

¶50

regularized the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of 10 years of completion of service on daily wage basis. The respondent-Corporation was not justified in reducing the pay scale of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed on daily wage basis to a sanctioned vacant post. Hence, the impugned order dated Nil.9.2008 at Annexure-C issued by the 5th respondent and impugned Communication dated 16/22.05.2009 at Annexure-D issued by the respondent No.6 requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The impugned order dated Nil.9.2008 at Annexure-C

¶53

issued by the 5th respondent and impugned Communication dated 16/22.05.2009 at Annexure-D issued by the respondent No.6 are hereby quashed.

¶54

¶55

ii) Respondents are directed to refund the deducted amount of Rs.24,016/- to the petitioner at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of deduction till actual payment.

¶56

iii) The respondents are directed to restore the pay scale which was fixed by extending 10 years Time bound scale and 15 years Time bound scale and thereafter, re-fix the pension and pay difference amount to the petitioner at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of entitlement till actual payment. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Vb/-

Fakirappa S/O. Mallappa Kurbar v. the Hubballi Dharwad Municipal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fakirappa S/O. Mallappa Kurbar v. the Hubballi Dharwad Municipal

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

Mahadevappa S/O Shivanna @ Shivappa Rayar Vs the State of Karnataka

J Rajappa S/O. Kariayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Maruti S/O Yamanappa Appajappagol, Vs Sri.Shivanand Lakkappa Magadum

Sri Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Rekha Birendraprasad Pande Vs the Union of India

Sri.Shivaputrappa S/Oo Andanappa Shiparmatti Vs the Secretary