Partly allowed

Sri B K Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024WP/15197/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that a petitioner similarly placed to 308 employees who received equal pay benefits in 2012 was entitled to those benefits retrospectively. The Court modified a government order extending benefits prospectively, applying them from the date of completing 10 years of service to prevent discrimination.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to treat petition as representation and extend equal pay benefits retrospectively from 05.12.2012, with arrears paid within six months.

Sri B K Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12609 WP No.15197 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.15197 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶7

SRI. B.K. KUMAR S/O SRI. KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.4805, NEAR TEJU CORNER VIJAYANAGARA, 4TH STAGE 2ND PHASE, MYSURU - 570032.

¶8

(BY SRI. GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADV.,) AND:

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560001.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION SAYAJI RAO ROAD MYSORE - 570024.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 SMT. M.P. GEETHADEVI, ADV., FOR R2)

¶14

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12609 WP No.15197 of 2023

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE APPROVAL ORDER / PROCEEDINGS DTD 7.11.2022, GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING SL.NO.NAE 104 ACM 2013, BENGALURU, PASSED BY THE R-1, AS PER ANNX-C AND C-1 GRANT THE BENEFIT OF REGULARIZATION TO THE PETITIONER BY EXTENDING ALL BENEFITS BY SANCTIONING REGULAR SALARY, INCREMENT, PROMOTION AND OTHER SERVICES BENEFIT ON FAR WITH THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE & ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking

¶20

mandamus to consider approval order / proceedings dated 07.11.2022 passed by 1st respondent as per Annexure-C. Petitioner is also seeking a mandamus to regularise petitioner's services by extending all benefits by sanctioning regular salary, increment, promotion and other service benefits on par with regular employees effective from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous service.

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:12609 WP No.15197 of 2023

¶22

¶23

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has given up the prayer relating to

¶24

petitioner's claim of regularisation.

¶25

Learned counsel for 2nd respondent - Corporation along with statement of objection has placed on record endorsement at Annexure-R2 indicating that the petitioner's claim of equal pay for equal work in terms of Government Order dated 07.11.2022 is given effect to. Referring to Annexure-R2, learned counsel for 2nd respondent has submitted that captioned petition does not survive for consideration.

¶26

However, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in an identical case wherein this Court, while modifying the Government Order dated 07.11.2022 was of the view that the respondents are bound to extend the benefit of equal pay for equal work retrospectively i.e. from 05.12.2012.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:12609 WP No.15197 of 2023

¶29

Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.990/2024.

¶30

Though the learned counsel for 2nd respondent has vehemently argued and has opposed any further relief at the hands of this Court on the ground that no such prayer or recommendation is made by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accede to the said argument. It would be equally important for this Court to take note of the observations made by this Court in same set of facts. Paragraphs 6 to 9 would be relevant and the same are extracted as under:

¶31

"6. Before I proceed further, it would be useful for this Court to refer to the said communication, which reads as under:

¶32

ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ (1) & (2) ರ ಪತ�ದನ�ಯ �ೖಸೂರು ಮ�ಾನಗರ�ಾ��ೆಯ ಒಳಚರಂ� !ಾಗದ ಒಳಚರಂ� | ಸ�ಚ"#ಾ �ಾಯ$ದ�� 139 %ೌಕರರು �ಾಗೂ ಮ�ನ (ೕರು ಶು*+ೕಕರಣ ಘಟಕಗಳ�� ಾಯ$(ವ$ಹ1ೆ 2ಾಡು45ರುವ 86 ಗು456ೆ7ಾರರ %ೌಕರರುಗ86ೆ ಸ2ಾನ �ೆಲಸ�ೆ: ಸ2ಾನ ;ೇತನ ವನು< (ೕಡುವಂ#ೆ %ಾಂಕ : 28.12.2013 ರಂದು ತ=ರ ಸ>4 ಸ!ೆಯನು< ನ?ೆ@ �ೈ6ೊಂ�ರುವ 42ಾ$ನದ «¸ÀÛ ævÀ ವರಯನು< ಈ6ಾಗ�ೇ

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12609 WP No.15197 of 2023

¶34

ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ (3) ರ�� ಸ��ಸ�ಾB7ೆ . ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಸ2ಾನ �ೆಲಸ�ೆ: ಸ2ಾನ ;ೇತನವನು< (ೕಡುವಂ#ೆ ಸೂಕ5 ಆ7ೇಶವನು< �ೊರ�ಸುವಂ#ೆ ಸ�ಾ$ರ�ೆ: E�ಾರಸುF 2ಾ�7ೆ �ಾಗೂ ಸ2ಾನ �ೆಲಸ�ೆ: ಸ2ಾನ ;ೇತನ (ೕ�ದGೆ ತಗಲುವ ವH#ಾHಸದ Iತ5ವನು< ನಗರ�ಾ��ೆಯ ಸಂಪನೂJಲಗ8ಂದ ಭLಸಲು ಬದN;ಾBರುತ57ೆ . ಸದL ಷಯದ ಬ6ೆP ಸ�ಾ$ರದಅನುIೕದ%ೆ �ೋರ�ಾB7ೆ .

¶35

7. On meticulous examination of materials on record, this Court would find that though petitioners were also entitled to the benefit on par with 308 employees, who were extended the benefit of equal pay for equal work way back in 2012. Petitioners were denied the said benefit. Petitioners had to fight for their rights by approaching this Court and it is only pursuant to directions issued by this Court, respondent No.1 has constituted a committee. The committee, in turn, has recommended extending the benefit to the petitioners. Around 308 employees were extended the benefit way back in 2012, while petitioners who were also entitled to the benefit were denied for no fault. Respondent No.1-State having received the proposal way back in 2013, was found not to be diligent in taking action on the proposal sent by respondent No.2-Corporation. Respondent No.2 sent a proposal on 16.04.2013. There is absolute

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:12609 WP No.15197 of 2023

¶38

laxness on the part of respondent No.1-State in not deciding the proposal, which was virtually affecting the petitioners financially. After securing the report from the committee, respondent No.1 has belatedly decided to extend the benefit in 2023. In absence of any strong and valid reasons to deny the benefit that was conferred on 308 employees, who are similarly placed, the order under challenge conferring the benefit of equal pay for equal work prospectively not only amounts to discrimination but also undermines petitioners legitimate right of seeking equal pay. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 in extending the benefit prospectively is not supported by any valid reasons. If respondent No.2-Corporation is willing to take up the additional burden in the event the benefit is extended retrospectively, respondent No.1-State cannot contest or have any objection in extending the benefit retrospectively.

¶39

8. Be that as it may. If similarly placed employees were extended the benefit way back in 2012, no exception can be taken and no

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:12609 WP No.15197 of 2023

¶42

discrimination can be meted out against the petitioners as they cannot be faulted.

¶43

9. In the light of observations made supra, this Court is of the view that despite recognition of petitioners’ entitlement to parity, respondent No.1 has chosen to extend the benefit prospectively. The principle of equal pay for equal work is a fundamental tenet of labour rights, aimed at ensuring fairness and equity in the workplace. Despite the acknowledgment of this principle, respondent No.1 has opted to extend the benefit prospectively, thereby perpetuating a disparity in treatment between employees performing similar duties. This discrepancy is further exacerbated by the fact that employees in analogous positions (308 employees) were granted the benefit as early as December 2012. The failure to adhere to the directives of this Court issued in 2017 further underscores the inexcusable delay in rectifying the injustice. The action of respondent No.1 constitute a clear case of discrimination."

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12609 WP No.15197 of 2023

¶45

In the light of the findings recorded by this Court

¶46

in same set of facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to seek the benefit of equal pay retrospectively w.e.f. 05.12.2012. The 2nd respondent

¶47

has infact supported its employees in the said petition bearing W.P. No.990/2024. This Court, taking cognizance of the statement made by the 2nd respondent - Corporation that it is willing to take the additional burden

¶48

and there are sufficient funds in the corpus of 2nd respondent - Corporation, modified the Government Order dated 07.11.2022 which extended the benefit of equal pay for equal work prospectively. Petitioner has a legal right to seek the benefit of equal pay for equal work. Similarly placed 308 employees were extended the benefit in 2012. The respondents being a statutory body cannot discriminate petitioner. If such contention is entertained that would lead to gross injustice to the petitioner who is similarly placed to those 308 employees who were

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:12609 WP No.15197 of 2023

¶50

¶51

extended benefit from 2012. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) Writ petition is allowed-in-part.

¶54

(ii) Respondents are directed to treat this writ

¶55

petition as a representation.

¶56

(iii) The 2nd respondent shall give effect to the Government Order dated 07.11.2022 and shall extend the benefit of equal pay for equal work w.e.f. 05.12.2012.

¶57

(iv) The arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri B K Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B K Kumar 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. M. S. Nandish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S R Sampath Kumar Vs the Chairman

Smt. Bhagyalakshmi C.N Vs the Chairman

Sri Vinay Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gangaraja S S Vs State of Karnataka

State Bank of India Vs Karnataka State Commission