An absorbed employee of a closed company, denied salary arrears and pay revision for a period without posting on the ground of absence, challenged the rejection order. The court held the period was compulsory waiting, allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order and directed reconsideration with pay parity.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3398 OF 2014 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SIDDALINGA MURTHY, S/O LATE H SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.82/1, 2ND CROSS, SARIGE NAGARA, KOLAR, WORKING AS CLERK IN OFFICE OF MANAGER, D DEVARAJ URS BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLAR DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHESH S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
NC: 2024:KHC:36247 WP No. 3398 of 2014
BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - QUASH THE ORDER DT.19.11.13, VIDE ANN-O PASSED BY THE R4.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE ARREARS OF SALARY FROM 1.1.2008, TO 24.10.2011 CALCULATED AS PER ANN-P ALONG WITH INTEREST & FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCORD THE BENEFIT OF THE 6TH PAY RECOMMENDATION AS IS ACCORDED TO OTHER SIMILARLY PLACED EMPLOYEES.GRANT INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY AT LEAST 50% OF THE ARREARS OF SALARY & TO ACCORD THE BENEFIT OF THE 6TH PAY RECOMMENDATION TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the respondent No.4 bearing No.Him Va Ka 432 BET 2012, dated 19.11.2013, by which he was denied the financial benefits for the period 24.05.2008 to 04.11.2011.
NC: 2024:KHC:36247 WP No. 3398 of 2014
petitioner thereafter was rejected in terms of order dated 22.02.2010 which was then challenged before this Court in W.P No.11558/2010. Based on the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the order dated 22.02.2010 would be withdrawn, the writ petition was disposed off as nothing survived for consideration. The petitioner contends that despite the submission that was recorded in W.P No.11558/2010, the state government failed to reconsider the request of the petitioner, which prompted the petitioner to file CCC NO.1703/2011. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 passed an order dated 24.10.2011, deputing the petitioner as a clerk cum typist at the District Managers office, D. Devaraj Urs Backward Class Development, Kolar. The petitioner contends that persons similarly placed as petitioner were threatened of termination and therefore they filed W.P No.27769/2003 before this Court, which was disposed off in terms of the order dated 14.08.2009, whereby, the respondent No.1 was directed to absorb the petitioners wherever they were working on deputation and held that they would be entitled to all consequential benefits. The state government filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid order in W.P No.4507/2009 which was
NC: 2024:KHC:36247 WP No. 3398 of 2014
disposed off in terms of the order dated 19.07.2013. Following the above, respondent No.1, in terms of a notification dated 26.06.2012, implemented the 6th pay commission and accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to a revision of the pay scale. It is contended that a person named Sri Venkatesh, who was similarly situated as the petitioner, was accorded the benefits of revised scale, which was however, was denied to the petitioner arbitrarily. The petitioner therefore, submitted a representation to respondent No.1 on 05.08.2013, requesting fixation of his pay and for arrears of salary. The said representation was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner submitted another representation on 18.11.2013. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had absented from work between 24.05.2008 and 04.11.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner before this Court in this writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:36247 WP No. 3398 of 2014
given a posting and therefore, treating it as unauthorized absence is arbitrary, illegal and deserves to be interfered with.
NC: 2024:KHC:36247 WP No. 3398 of 2014
his peers who were earlier working in the Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Company Limited and deputed to various departments and absorbed in such departments. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 deserves to be interfered with.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
1 issue framed by the court
Was an employee denied posting between 24.05.2008 and 04.11.2011 entitled to wages for that period and revision under the 6th pay commission?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SIDDALINGA MURTHY
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
THE DIRECTOR, BACKWARD CLASSES DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
