Writ petition involving stipendiary graduates challenging the rejection of their claims for notional fixation of pay from 1991. The Court declined interference, holding that per Apex Court directions, their benefits are limited to retirement purposes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO.103179 OF 2017 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
AND LIVING AT MUNDGESAR VILLAGE, (NOW WORKING AS FDA IN TASILDAR OFFICE, SIRSI AND R/O II CROSS, LIONS NAGAR, TQ. SIRSI, DIST-UTTARA KANNADA-581402).
- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
(BY SRI LAXMESH P.MUTAGUPPE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
- 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
- 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
- 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
- 9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
- 10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8618-DB WP No. 103179 of 2017
(NOTE: RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 47 ARE FORMAL RESPONDENTS AND NOT CONTEST TO PROSECUTE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT HENCE NOTICE MAY BE DISPENSE WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.08.2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.4461/2007 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.4461/2007 MY BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 10.08.2016 in Application No. 4461/2007 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short ‘Tribunal’) rejecting petitioners application requesting to quash Government order dated 22.12.2006 vide Annexure-A1 as well as to quash the letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 13.04.2007 vide Annexure-A2 and for a direction to respondent to consider their claims to fix their pay in the time scale of pay attached to the post held by them with effect from 01.09.1991 as per Rule 41-A of KCSRs.
arbitrary and would not stand to reason. He submits that the petitioners would be entitled for notional fixation of their pay from 1991 and failure on the part of respondent no.2 to fix their notional pay is wholly illegal. Learned counsel would submit that except Uttara Kannada District, all other Districts have extended the benefit of notional fixation of pay from 1991 and action of the respondent no.2 is arbitrary.
1 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595
Court in Nagaraj’s case . Direction no.6 in Nagaraj’s case reads as follows:
“(6) The appointment of the stipendiary graduates as Second Division Assistants shall however be effective from May 1991 the period fixed by this Court for compliance of order dated July 24, 1990 for purposes of granting retirement benefits only.”
Pending IAs, if any, also stand dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48
BVV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether stipendiary graduates are entitled to notional fixation of pay from 01.01.1991 in the time scale attached to the post of Village Accountant/SDA.
Whether Rule 41-A of KCSRs can be invoked to grant pay fixation benefits to petitioners apart from pensionary benefits.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the order of the Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claims for pay fixation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S. Nagaraj & Others Vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶109
S.Nagaraj & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & anr. 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
MUNNASAB NANNUSAB ANGADI
BALACHANDRA RAMADAS KINI
LAKSHMAN RAMNATH NAIK
MARY BELECHER FERNANDIZ
MITRA VIGNESWAR SHETTI
SARASA CHINNA NAIK
S G PANDIT
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
