Dismissed

Sri. S.A. Sreedhara Bhatta v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021WP/33966/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Tribunal orders dismissing a claim to step up pay to match a junior's salary based on Article 39(d) and specific pay rules. The Court examined the applicability of government orders and pay rules regarding stagnation increments, finding no legal basis to disturb the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Sri. S.A. Sreedhara Bhatta Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

W.P.No.33966/2015 (S – KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI.S.A.SREEDHARA BHATTA S/O LATE SRI.APPANNA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT (RETIRED) "BHAGIRATINILAYA" NARAYANANA ASHRAMA BADAVANE, SAGAR-577401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR SAGAR TALUK, SAGAR-577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL KARNATAKA (A&E),

¶16

¶17

RESIDENCY PARK ROAD BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA.)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE K.A.T DATED 29.07.2013 IN APPLICATION No.4375/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE W.P. AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2014 PASSED BY THE K.A.T IN REVIEW APPLICATION No.50/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-3 TO THE W.P. AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.07.2013 passed in Application No.4375/2007 as well as the order dated 18.12.2014 passed in Review Application No.50/2013 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru ['Tribunal' for short]produced at Annexures-C and E respectively to the writ petition.

¶23

Briefly stated the facts relevant for the purpose of the present case are as under:

¶24

The petitioner claims that he was selected and appointed as village accountant on 28.03.1974 in

¶25

¶26

Shivamogga District, after completing his graduation in Science. After the 32 years service as village accountant, he has promoted as First Division Assistant in the office of the Tahasildar, Sagar Taluk on 29.06.2006. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from the services on the afternoon of 30.06.2007.

¶27

It is the grievance of the petitioner that on

¶28

account of the State Fifth Pay Commission revised pay Rules and revision of pay scales to the employees published by the Government of Karnataka coming into force from 01.07.2005, the pay scale of the petitioner though was fixed in the revised scale of Rs.7,275 – 13,350/- with effect from 01.07.2005, the same was not on par with his junior Sri.H.Gopala whose Revised Scale was fixed on 01.07.2007 at Rs.15,150/-. The pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.14,800/-, in view of reaching the maximum of revised scale. Having regard to the disparity in the pay drawn by the petitioner vis-à-vis his

¶29

¶30

junior Sri.H.Gopala, he requested to step up his pay to bring it up on par with his junior but in vain. The second respondent declined to consider the said request which was the subject matter of the application before the Tribunal in Application No.4375/2007. The said application came to be dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review application in R.P.No.50/2013 which also came to be dismissed.

¶31

Being aggrieved by the said orders, the

¶32

petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶33

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶34

that the relief of stepping up of the pay of the petitioner

¶35

in order to match the same to the pay drawn by his junior Sri.H.Gopala as on 01.07.2007 was based on the principles enshrined under Article 39[d] of Constitution of India which mandates that there shall be equal pay for equal work. By virtue of revision of scales, if the pay of junior is fixed at a higher stage than that of his

¶36

¶37

senior, in such circumstances, the pay of the senior is also required to be protected by stepping up of his pay. The Tribunal failed to appreciate this cardinal principle of equal pay. The anomaly of junior getting higher pay than that of the petitioner on account of petitioner getting stagnation increment in the pre-revised scale was required to be corrected by stepping up of pay of the senior to that of the junior. The Tribunal has failed to consider the Government order dated 22.08.2005 and

¶38

Rule 7[8] of the Karnataka Civil Services [Revised Pay] Rules, 2007 ['Rules' for short] in a right perspective.

¶39

Per contra, learned Additional Government

¶40

Advocate appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned orders submitted that neither the Government order dated 22.08.2005 nor Rule 7[8] of the Rules are applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner having earned five stagnation increments wherein before the notification of new pay scale 2007

¶41

¶42

cannot claim for stepping up of his pay on par with his junior Sri.H.Gopala who has earned two stagnation increments prior to the notification of new pay scale 2007 and the remaining stagnation increments thereafter i.e., the revised pay Rules coming into force. The Tribunal appreciating these material aspects has rightly dismissed the application as well as the review application. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶43

We have carefully considered the rival

¶44

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶45

As per Revised Pay Scales, 1999, the petitioner has earned maximum five stagnation increments well before the notification of New Pay Scales, 2007. Annexure-A9 dated 22.08.2005 would make it clear that where a Government servant who is granted stagnation increment/s in the pre-revised scale

¶46

¶47

applicable to him draws pay lower than that of his junior who is granted stagnation increment/s in the revised scale applicable to him, the pay of the senior Government servant can be stepped up to that of his junior subject to certain conditions:

¶48

It is discernable that the petitioner’s pay was fixed at Rs.13,350 + Rs.1,450 = Rs.14,800/- on 01.07.2005 taking into consideration the grant of five stagnation increments already earned by him which is the maximum increment to which the petitioner was legally entitled, as per the Revised Pay Scales, 1999. The junior Sri.H.Gopala’s pay as on 01.07.2005 was Rs.13,350 + Rs.1,050 = 14,400/-. The junior having received two stagnation increments was entitled to the remaining stagnation increments after coming into force of the Revised Pay Scales, 2007. As such, the said revised pay scale was granted to the said Sri.H.Gopala. There being no further scope for any revision after

¶49

¶50

granting five stagnation increments as per the G.O dated 22.08.2005. Moreover, when there was re-fixation of pay in relation to the petitioner and Sri.H.Gopala as on 01.07.2005, as per the relevant Revised Pay Rules,

¶51

the pay o the petitioner was not less than that of Sri.H.Gopala.

¶52

Rule 7[8] of the Rules reads thus:

¶53

“7[8]. Where a senior Government servant promoted to a higher post before 1^st July 2005 draws less pay in the ‘revised scale’ than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after 1^st July 2005, the pay of the senior Government servant shall be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay fixed for his junior in the higher post. This stepping up of pay shall be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions, namely:-

¶54

[a] both the senior and the junior Government servants should, before their promotion, belong to

¶55

¶56

the same cadre and the posts to which they have been promoted belong to the same cadre;

¶57

[b] the ‘existing scale’ and the ‘revised scale’ of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay are identical; [c] the junior Government servant was not drawing more pay in the ‘existing scale’ than the senior Government servant in the lower post; and

¶58

[d] the anomaly is the direct result of the application of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules or any other rules or orders regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the ‘revised scale’.”

¶59

A reading of this provision would make it

¶60

clear that the said Rule would be applicable for the fixation of initial pay in the Revised Scales. This Rule would be of little assistance to the petitioner. For the

¶61

10 -

¶62

aforesaid reasons, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay on par with his Junior Sri.H.Gopala.

¶63

In our considered view, no infirmity is found

¶64

in the order of the Tribunal passed on the original application or the review application.

¶65

In the result, writ petition stands dismissed as

devoid of merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NC.

Sri. S.A. Sreedhara Bhatta v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S.A. Sreedhara Bhatta v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt R Hemalatha Vs State of Karnataka

The Principal Secretary Vs K Ramu

Sri. D.v.Govinda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pramila Cheriath Vs the State of Karnataka