Disposed

Smt. Jayashree R S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 May 2023WP/18106/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed respondent authorities to ensure equal pay for equal work among Special Public Prosecutors appointed by different departments. Set aside impugned endorsements and remitted the matter for reconsideration within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside endorsements dated 05.05.2017 and 05.12.2017; remitted matter to first respondent to reconsider claim with parity in remuneration within eight weeks.

Smt. Jayashree R S Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 18106 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.18106 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JAYASHREE R. S. D/O GURURAJ RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC:ADVOCATE, R/O NO.42/3-1, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, ATTIGUPPE II STAGE, BENGALURU-40.

¶9

SMT. SHANTA B. MULLUR W/O RAMALINGA REDDY, OCC:ADVOCATE, R/O KHAJI SONNENAHALLI, KANNAMANGALA POST, BENGALURU-67.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 18106 of 2018

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF HOME (LAW AND ORDER, COFEPOSA AND PROSECUTION) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION KHB BUILDING, 6^TH FLOOR, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M.S.NAGARAJA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH TEH IMPUGNED ENDOPRSEMENT DATED 05.05.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.12.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners have been appointed as Special Public Prosecutors as per notification dated 11.03.2010 (Annexure-A), in terms of the Rule 26(3) of the Karnataka

¶27

Legal Officers, (Appointment and Service Conditions), Rules, 1977. It is stated in the writ petition that the

¶28

¶29

WP No. 18106 of 2018

¶30

petitioner No.1 has rendered service from 23.03.2010 to 31.05.2012 and the petitioner No.2 has served from 20.03.2010 to 12.11.2012. It is the grievance of the petitioners that petitioners have been discriminated with regard to the payment of salary made by the respondents with those who have been appointed by the Law Department, State Government, before the Director of Prosecution. Accordingly, the writ petition is filed by the petitioners, challenging the Endorsement dated 05.05.2017 and 05.12.2017 (Annexures-G and H respectively) passed by the 1^st respondent herein interalia sought for direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the observations made by this court in W.P.No.13849 of 2013 and connected maters.

¶31

I have heard Smt Sumangala Gachchinmath,

¶32

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.S.Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 18106 of 2018

¶35

Smt sumangala Gachchinamath, learned

¶36

counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the respondent-authorities are discriminating the appointees for payment of remuneration and same is contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors reported in AIR 2017 SC 5176 . Accordingly, she sought for interference of this court.

¶37

Per contra, Sri M.S.Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned Endorsement issued by the respondent-authorities.

¶38

In the light of the submission made by the

¶39

learned counsel appearing for the parties and having taken note of the fact that, there is practice in the State Government in respect of appointment of Special Public Prosecutors on Adhoc basis by the Law Department and Home Department, whereby, Law Department assigned

¶40

the remuneration to an extent of Rs.4,000/- per month as retainer fee and Rs.75/- per day for hearing a Sessions

¶41

¶42

WP No. 18106 of 2018

¶43

case or Criminal appeal or such other proceedings subject to a minimum of Rs.600/- per month and maximum of

¶44

Rs.3,000/- per month. However, in respect of Special Public Prosecutors, who have been appointed by the Home Department, are entitled for a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month and such other benefits. In that view of the matter, this court in W.P.No.18342 of 2015 disposed of on 13.11.2020 (AnnexureR3 to the Statement of Objections) held that, there must be a parity insofar as payment of remuneration of appointees by the Law Department as well a Home Department. It is needles to state that State Government has filed Statement of Objections and at paragraph 12 of the same reiterated that, the case of the petitioners will be considered in view of the aforementioned order passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the paragraph-12 of the Statement of Objections and law declared by the by this court in W.P.No.18342 of 2015 (Sri Ganapathi Prasanna case) and the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh ( supra), the

¶45

¶46

WP No. 18106 of 2018

¶47

respondent-authorities shall maintain parity amongst their employees with regard to equal pay for equal work. In that view of the matter, respondent-authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18342 of 2015. In the result, Endorsement dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent No.3 and Endorsement dated 05.12.2017, (Annexure- H) passed by 1^st respondent are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent herein to re-consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of observations made above, particularly, in the light of the order of this Court passed in Ganapathi Prasanna case (W.P.No.18342 of 2015), (supra), within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Smt. Jayashree R S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayashree R S v. the State of Karnataka

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 Venugopal Singh K G Vs the General Manager Works

k Annapurna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S Kondala Rao Vs Bengaluru University

Manjula Rajakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Basavaraju T D Vs the General Manager

Smt. H. Shantha Vs the State of Karnataka