Allowed

Sri Jagannatha K G v. the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/25302/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order that reversed pay scales and ordered recovery of excess amounts. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to restore the petitioners' pay scales as per a previously approved government order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioners' pay scales restored as per order dated 23.02.2012 with consequential benefits within four months.

Sri Jagannatha K G Vs the Karnataka… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25302 OF 2015 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. JAGANNATHA K.G. S/O SRI GOVINDA SETTY K.R. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SENIOR TEXTILE DESIGNER KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, NO.1, TANK ROAD, NEAR MEG CENTER, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶8

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. DILIP KUMAR SHETTY S/O SRI. K.M. CHANDARA SHEKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SENIOR TEXTILE DESIGNER, PRIYADARSHINI HANDLOOMS, NO.70, RALLARAM BUILDING, P. KALINGARAO ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. 3. SRI. TANDUR S.K. S/O KUSHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SENIOR TEXTILE DESIGNER PRIYADARSHINI HANDLOOMS NO.89, 11^TH CROSS, SAMPEGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE 560 003.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶15

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRIYADARSHINI WEAVER BHAVAN, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580031.

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, NO.1, TANK ROAD, PRIYADARSHINI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HALASUR, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. D. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.KHDC/DPA/HO/2015-16/200 DATED 20.05.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-T ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-P ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT WHICH CAME TO BE PASSED AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners have challenged an office order bearing No.KHDC/DPA/HO/2015-16/200 dated 20.05.2015 passed by the respondent No.1 by which the pay fixation orders bearing

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶26

Nos.KHDC/DPA/HO/2011-12/574 dated 23.02.2012 and KHDC/DPA/HO/11-12/575 dated 23.02.2012 were withdrawn and the pay scale of the petitioners was reverted to their earlier scale of pay i.e., Rs.750- 1500 with effect from 14.02.1985 and the excess pay paid to the petitioners as per the order dated 23.02.2012, was ordered to be recovered with interest at 14% per annum.

¶27

The petitioners contend that the post of Textile Designer is a sanctioned post as per the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited (Staff) Regulations, 1979 (henceforth referred to as 'the Staff Regulations, 1979'). The pay scale applicable to the post of a Textile Designer as per the Staff Regulations, 1979 was Rs.750-1525 which was revised to a sum of Rs.1050-1950 vide office order dated 29.12.1983 with effect from 01.04.1982.

¶28

2.1 The respondents invited applications for the post of Textile Designer on 02.08.1984. However, while issuing the advertisement, the scale of pay as applicable to a Textile Designer was advertised as Rs.750-1525 though what was revised by that time was Rs.1050-1950. The petitioners were

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶31

appointed as Textile Designers and the corresponding appointment orders were issued to the petitioners where the pay scale of the petitioners was wrongly shown as Rs.750-1500 instead of Rs.750-1525. The petitioner No.1 noticing the anomaly in the pay scale submitted a representation in January 1989 requesting the respondent No.1 to set right the anomaly. As there was no response, the petitioner No.1 submitted a detailed representation on 11.03.1991 stating that as per the advertisement dated 01.05.1979, the post of Textile Designers carried the pay scale of Rs.750-1525 and that some of the candidates appointed subsequent to the petitioners though having the same qualification, were paid a higher scale, namely, Rs.860-1600. The petitioner No.1 therefore sought for rectification of the pay anomaly.

¶32

2.2 In the meanwhile, the petitioners were promoted as Senior Textile Designers on 16.12.1995. The petitioner No.1 again made a request to the respondent No.1 on 20.11.2001 specifically stating that Sri K. Nanjundeshwar, Miss. Illa Desiraj Urs were paid higher scales though they were working as Textile Designers. Thereafter, a joint representation was submitted by all the petitioners on 19.03.2009. Taking into

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶34

account the pay anomaly, the respondent No.2 by an order dated 08.02.2010, rectified the mistakes that had occurred in the appointment orders of the petitioners and ordered that the pay scale of the petitioners shall be read as Rs.1050-1950 instead of Rs.750-1525 with effect from 14.02.1985 and that the scale of pay shall be notionally revised from time to time up to the implementation of the 5^th Pay Commission .

¶35

2.3 The respondent No.2 after obtaining counsel, sought approval from the Department of Commerce and Industries by a communication dated 18.06.2010. The State Government by its communication dated 04.08.2010, granted approval to the decision of the Management. In the meanwhile, the petitioners made another representation on 05.01.2011 requesting respondent No.1 to implement the order dated 08.02.2010.

¶36

2.4 The respondent No.2 by an order dated 23.02.2012, was pleased to grant the petitioners the benefit of revision of pay scale to the post of Textile Designers retrospectively by rectifying the mistake that had crept in while

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶39

issuing the orders of appointment. After such approval, the pay scales of the petitioners were re-fixed.

¶40

2.5 When things stood thus, the respondent No.1 referred the matter to a Committee to review the higher scale given to the petitioners on the ground that the same was not in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment Rules and the Staff Regulations, 1979. The Committee came to the conclusion that the Textile Designers were appointed on 14.02.1985 based on the advertisement issued in the year 1984 in the revised pay scale of Rs.750-1500 and that the petitioners had accepted the said pay scale and reported to duty on 18.02.1985.

¶41

2.6 On the basis of this report, show cause notice/s was/were issued to the petitioners on 24.02.2015 accusing them of misrepresenting to the Management and obtaining a higher pay scale. The petitioners submitted a detailed reply and also sought for certain documents such as the report of the Committee, Cadre and Recruitment Rules and the appointment orders issued to the other Textile Designers etc. Since the respondents did not hand over the documents as sought for, the petitioners were constrained to submit another

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶44

representation seeking for the said documents. However, the respondent No.2 without considering the representations of the petitioners passed an order dated 20.05.2015, withdrew the office orders dated 23.02.2012 and directed that the pay scales of the petitioners shall be read as Rs.750-1500 with effect from

¶45

14.02.1985 and ordered recovery of the excess amount received by the petitioners along with interest at 14% per annum.

¶46

Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is

¶47

filed.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the pay scales applicable to a Textile Designer and as revised on 17.03.1977 was Rs.750-1525 and the same stood revised by an office order dated 07.03.1987 to Rs.1400-2750. This was again revised by Time bound Advancement Rules, 1988 on 12.05.1988 and the petitioners were granted selection time scale of pay of Rs.1600-2990. He contends that when the pay scale applicable to a Textile Designer is Rs.750-1525 as per the office order dated 17.03.1977 which was revised to Rs.10501950 with effect from 01.04.1982 by office order dated

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶51

29.12.1983, the respondents could not have invited applications for the post of Textile Designer by fixing the pay scale at Rs.750-1500 which was a non-existent scale of pay. Therefore, he contends that when the petitioners were appointed and appointment orders were issued, the applicable pay scale was Rs.1050-1950. He, therefore, contends that the respondents had rightly corrected the pay anomaly and had granted the correct scales of pay to the petitioners vide order dated 23.02.2012. He, therefore, contends that the report of the Committee holding that the applicable pay scale to the post of the Textile Designer when the advertisement notification was issued was Rs.750-1500 was incorrect. He further submits that the Committee also did not afford an opportunity to the petitioners to establish that they were entitled to higher scale of pay when they were appointed.

¶52

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a copy of the Staff Regulations, 1979. He contends that as per the Time Bound Advancement Rules, 1988 dated 12.05.1988, the selection time scale of pay of Rs.1600– 2990 corresponded to the previous scale of pay of Rs.14002750. The pay scale of Rs.1400-2750 was earlier Rs.750-1500

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶54

as per the office order dated 07.03.1987 and the previous scale of pay was Rs.500-1120. He therefore submits that the pay scale that was payable to the post of Textile Designer was Rs.750-1500 and the same was advertised. He contends that the petitioners were all appointed in the same pay scale and that they joined duty without any demur. He contends that the Selection Committee which had selected the petitioners as well as the Smt.Ilia Desiraj Urs had considered the case of Smt.Illa Desiraj Urs as a special case in view of her higher academic accomplishments and was granted a higher scale of pay than the petitioners. He contends that the same scale of pay was continued for others as well and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any better treatment. He also contends that one Mr. B.K. Subramanya who was appointed as a Textile Designer in the pay scale of Rs.750-1500 was granted two increments of Rs.25/- each. Therefore, he contends that it was understood that the post of Textile Designer carried a pay scale of Rs.7501500 and hence, there is no room for stepping up of pay of the petitioners. He contends that the Committee has gone into all these vital aspects and has rightly held that the petitioners had

¶55

10 -

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶57

misled the respondent No.2 and had obtained a higher scale of pay than they were entitled to.

¶58

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶59

counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶60

It is seen from the Staff Regulations, 1979 placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents that the post of Textile Designer carried a pay scale of Rs.500/- which was revised to Rs.750-1525 by an order of the respondent No.2 dated 17.03.1977. This pay scale stood revised to Rs.1050–1950 by an office order dated 29.12.1983. The respondents had issued the advertisement to fill up the post of Textile Designer on 02.08.1984. However, in the said paper publication inviting applications to the post of Textile Designer, the pay scale offered was Rs.750-1500. As on 02.08.1984, when the advertisement was caused, there was no such pay scale in the respondents and the nearest pay scale was Rs.7501525. Be that as it may, the pay scale as on 02.08.1984 was Rs.1050-1950 as per the office order dated 29.12.1983. Nonetheless, the petitioners were appointed in the lower pay

¶61

11 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶63

scale. The petitioners having realized the mistake in being given a lower pay scale at the time of their appointment, made appropriate representations before the respondents and after a continued persuasion, respondent No.2 yielded and agreed to revise the pay scales subject to approval of the State Government. The State Government had approved the correction in the anomaly of the pay scales granted to the petitioners on 08.02.2010 which resulted in an order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 by which the pay scales of the petitioners were modified with effect from the date of their appointment. The respondent No.2 long thereafter on an assumption held that the petitioners had obtained higher pay scales by misrepresenting the respondents and therefore initiated proceedings. The respondent No.2 thereafter passed an order on 20.05.2015 withdrawing the earlier office orders of even date i.e., 23.02.2012 and directed the pay scale of the petitioners to be fixed in the lower scale as on the date of their appointment as Rs.750-1500 with effect from 14.02.1985 and directed recovery of the excess pay paid to the petitioners along with interest at 14% per annum.

¶64

12 -

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶66

It is evident from the above that the respondent No.1 was not conscious of the fact that when the advertisement notification was issued, the pay scale applicable to the post of a Textile Designer was Rs.1050-1950 and not Rs.750-1500. Therefore, the petitioners who were appointed on 14.02.1985 were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1050-1950. The respondent No.2 in terms of the order dated 08.02.2010, had rightly undone the anomaly and had offered the pay scale of Rs.1050-1950 to the petitioners which in the facts and circumstances of the present case was the right thing to do. The respondent No.2 after having considered the same and granted the corrected scale of pay to the petitioners and the same after having been approved by the State Government, it could not have been reviewed and the scale of the pay of the petitioners could not have been pegged down to Rs.750-1500 which was not even the scale of pay applicable to a Textile Designer. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is incorrect and warrants interference. Hence, the following:

¶67

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:37708 WP No. 25302 of 2015

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. This petition is allowed.

¶70

ii. The impugned order bearing

¶71

No.KHDC/DPA/HO/2015-16/200 dated 20.05.2015 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside. The respondent No.1 is directed to forthwith restore the pay scales of the petitioners as per the office order Nos.KHDC/DPA/HO/2011-12/574 and KHDC/DPA/HO/2011-12/575 both dated 23.02.2012 and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

SMA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri Jagannatha K G v. the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jagannatha K G v. the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss Anitha Vs Sri Prakash

Shankrappa Vs Prabhu Kannan

R Nagarajaiah Vs the Managing Director

Nithyananda Vs Union of India

Pramod Kumar Verma Vs Syndicate Bank

Sri. Madhu H P Vs the State of Karnataka