Allowed

Dr Vasudevan S N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/5746/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Professor who moved between agricultural universities without a break in service was fixed at minimum pay instead of his last drawn salary. The court ruled his resignation under Rule 252(b) KCSR was not a fresh appointment and quashed the endorsement denying pay protection.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 02.11.2018 quashed; respondent No.2 to forward pay refixation proposal within two months granting pay protection based on last drawn salary, with arrears, pay revision, pension and g

Dr Vasudevan S N Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5746 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. VASUDEVAN S.N. S/O S.N. NABHIRAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.463, K.C. LAYOUT, 7^TH CROSS 10^TH MAIN, MYSORE-570016.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶12

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

¶13

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, GKVK, BANGALORE-560065 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR

¶14

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES GKVK, BENGALURU-560065

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶17

SRI. M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶21

02.11.2018 BEARING NO.A.K/SIBBANDI-RESEARCH/PRAS.N.VA/4586/REPLY/2018-19 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶26

a) issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the order dated 02.11.2018 bearing No. A.K/Sibbandi-Research/Pra-S.N.Va/4586/ Reply/2018-19 passed by the Respondent No.3, produced at ANNEXURE - A;

¶27

b) issue an appropriate writ/order/direction directing Respondent No.3 to fix the pay of the Petitioner as per his representation dated 01.03.2018 bearing No. Vakrusankya/SaSoNi/ 2340/2017-18, produced at ANNEXURE-G;

¶28

c) issue an appropriate writ/order/direction declaring that the Government order bearing No.KruE 43 KruVDA 2017 dated 27.03.2018 produced at ANNEXURE-I is not applicable to the Petitioner.

¶29

d) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents to pay arrears in the difference of pay from the date of taking charge in the current post along with interest.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶32

The petitioner, who was a Professor at University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Raichur and drawing a salary of Rs.61,180/- with Rs.10,000/- Academic Grade Pay (AGP), submitted his application against a notification issued by the respondent No.2/University inviting applications for appointment to the post of Professors through direct recruitment. The petitioner was selected and an order of appointment dated 12.10.2017 was issued. The said order of appointment specifically provided,

¶33

"If he is an employee of the State or Central Government or a quasi Government/Statutory body, his pay in the University scale would be fixed as per guidelines approved by the Board after he furnishes authoritative information regarding his pay."

¶34

After the order of appointment was issued, the petitioner submitted his resignation at UAS, Raichur on 09.01.2018. On 16.01.2018, the UAS, Raichur, accepted his resignation under Rule 252(b) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (henceforth referred to as 'KCSR'). After the petitioner reported to duty at UAS, Bengaluru, on 17.01.2018, he realized that his salary was fixed in the minimum scale of Rs.43,000/along with AGP of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner therefore,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶37

submitted a representation dated 01.03.2018 requesting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to re-fix his pay based on his last drawn salary at UAS, Raichur. The respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 02.11.2018 and rejected the request relying upon a letter dated 27.03.2018 issued by the respondent No.1/State Government.

¶38

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, has filed this writ petition.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the letter dated 27.03.2018 addressed by the respondent No.1/State Government, the petitioner was deprived of the protection of his pay after he assumed charge at UAS, Bengaluru. He invited the attention of the Court to the said letter, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

¶40

"¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ, £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ ºÉÆAzÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ, C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ, EvÀgÉ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ EªÀÅUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀQë¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®è. CAvÉAiÉÄÃ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹zÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀQë¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®è."

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶43

He contended that this was in absolute violation of Rule 41-A of KCSR, which reads as follows:

¶44

"41-A - Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 20 and 41 of these rules or anything contained in the recruitment rules in respect of particular services but subject to the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment to Class III Posts) (Special) Rules, 1970 when a Government servant appointed to a post or category of posts as a local candidates or as regularly recruited candidate, is appointed regularly as per relevant rules of recruitment to any other posts or category of posts, whether in the same or any other department, whether a period of probation is prescribed or not his pay is regulated as follows:

¶45

(i) Where the appointment is to a post the scale of pay of which is lower than the scale of pay of the post he held last, his pay in his appointment shall be equivalent to the stage of pay which he would have reached had he been appointed to that scale of pay from the date he was initially appointed as a local candidate or as a regularly recruited candidate as the case may be;

¶46

(ii) Where the appointment is to a post the scale of pay of which is identical with the scale of pay of the post which he held last, his pay in his appointment shall be fixed at the stage which is equal to the pay drawn in the post last held by him.

¶47

Provided that after the initial pay is fixed under clause (i) or clause (ii), as the case may be, the next

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶49

increment in the scale of pay of the new post shall be granted on the date on which an increment in the time scale of the old post would have accrued, had he continued in that post or the date on which an increment accrues in the time- scale of the new post, whichever is earlier.

¶50

Note - The personal pay granted under Rule 8(f) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1970 shall continue even after the pay is fixed under this clause and shall be absorbed in the next increment.

¶51

(iii) xxx

¶52

(iv) If the minimum pay of the new post is higher than that fixed under the preceding clauses, that pay shall be allowed.

¶53

(v) The increment or increments falling due during the period of probation in cases of fixation done under clause (i) or (ii) above shall be governed by the provisions of the Note below Rule 10 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957.

¶54

(vi) When the probationer is declared to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation after an extended period of probation and the increments falling due during the extended period of probation have not been allowed under the Note below Rule 10 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957, his pay from the date of satisfactory completion of probation shall be refixed at what he would have drawn had he completed the probation at the end of the

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶57

prescribed period of probation and his future increments shall be allowed on the normal dates.

¶58

Instructions: (i) The benefit derivable under this rule shall also be given to appointments made regularly as per relevant rules of recruitment on or after the first day of April 1962.

¶59

(ii) Cases which have been decided already under Rule 42-A shall not be reopened if refixation of pay under these rules is disadvantageous to the Government servant.

¶60

(iii) The provisions of the Karnataka Probationers (Pay) Rules, shall not apply to those whose pay is to be regulated under Rule 41-A."

¶61

He contends that the recruitment notification declared that the salary payable to a Professor would be in the pay band of Rs.37,400-67,000+Rs.10,000 AGP, subject to a minimum scale of Rs.43,000/-. He contended that in order to grant the benefit of the last drawn salary, a clause was incorporated in the order of appointment dated 12.10.2017 that,

¶62

" If he is an employee of the State or Central Government or a quasi Government/statutory body, his pay in the University scale would be fixed as per guidelines approved by the Board after he furnishes authoritative information regarding his pay."

¶63

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶64

He contended that the scales of pay in the UAS, Raichur as well as UAS, Bengaluru are determined by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). He contends that the petitioner had earned annual and time bound increments while in service at UAS, Raichur and though the minimum scale of pay was offered to the petitioner, the order of appointment specifically provided that his pay in the University scale would be fixed as per the guidelines approved by the Board after he furnished authoritative information regarding his pay. He contends that the pay of the petitioner must have been fixed in the next stage rather than treating the petitioner on par with those direct recruits, who were recruited as per the notification dated 12.04.2016. He therefore, contends that the petitioner is entitled to protection of his pay.

¶65

This is however, countered by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have filed detailed statement of objections. It is stated that respondent No.2/University had issued a notification dated 12.04.2016 inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the teaching posts. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner submitted his application for the post of Associate Director of Research (Professor Cadre) and was selected and an

¶66

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶67

order of appointment was issued, which specifically indicated the scale of pay payable. It is contended that the petitioner without any demur, accepted the appointment and reported to duty. It is contended that the scales of pay that was notified was approved by the State Government and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim higher pay. Besides this, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to pay protection as that would be against the policy decision of the Government. It is contended that based on the advise of the State Government, the impugned endorsement was issued rejecting the request of the petitioner for protection of his pay.

¶68

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the above contentions.

¶69

The learned Additional Government Advocate also supported the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶70

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶71

10 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶73

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs.61,180/- with AGP of Rs.10,000/- when he was employed at the UAS, Raichur as a Professor. The extract of the service record of the petitioner furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner establishes that the petitioner had earned time bound increments and therefore, his salary was beyond the minimum pay scale prescribed for the post of Professor and was in the scale of Rs.61,180/- with AGP of Rs.10,000/-. The recruitment notification issued by the respondent No.2 did not exclude in-service candidates from applying and therefore, the petitioner was also entitled to apply. The qualification for the post of Professor is as follows:

¶74

"I. Professor cadre posts:

¶75

An eminent scholar with Ph.D. degree in the concerned/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers, of which at least five papers in NAAS rated journals in the previous cadre.

¶76

The total service required is 13 years in the cadre of Assistant Professor and above Teaching/Research/Extension experience in University/College/National level institutions with 3

¶77

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶78

years in the cadre of Associate Professor (3740067000 + 9000 AGP).

¶79

Significant contribution to Teaching/Research/ Extension.

¶80

A minimum score as stipulated in the prescribed Score Card.

¶81

A minimum pay of Rs.43000/- in the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000+10000 AGP."

¶82

Since the minimum scale of pay was Rs.3740067000+10000 AGP, the order of appointment issued to the petitioner specifically provided that his pay in the UAS, Bengaluru would be fixed as per the guidelines approved by the Board after he furnished authoritative information regarding the same. The letter dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure-H) addressed by UAS, Bengaluru to UAS, Raichur shows that correspondence was exchanged seeking details of salary paid to the petitioner. The resignation submitted by the petitioner to UAS, Raichur, was accepted under Rule 252(b) of KCSR. This therefore, meant that the petitioner did not resign from service and that his appointment at UAS, Bengaluru was not a fresh appointment.

¶83

12 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶85

The Board of the University had fixed certain guidelines for fixation of pay of teachers in the University of Agricultural Sciences. Following this, Circular No.18 dated 19.04.1967 was issued by the Administrative Officer, which reads as follows:

¶86

CHAPTER IV

¶87

PAY AND ALLOWANCES

¶88

Guide lines for fixation of Pay of Teachers in the University of Agricultural Sciences.

¶89

¶90

Circular No.18 dated April 19, 1967 of the Administrative Officer.

¶91

¶92

The Board felt that instead of deciding the fixation of pay of teachers separately, it is desirable to lay down some principles for the fixation of pay of all persons appointed by the University. Accordingly, the Board approved the following guide lines for purposes of pay fixation.

¶93

University employees who are selected for posts more or less equivalent in salary scale to their existing posts will draw their present salary plus the following weightage based on their previous services.

¶94

13 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶96

For three years of service or	:	1 increment
less
Upto six years of service	:	2 increments
More than six years of	:	3 increments
service

¶97

University employees who are selected for higher posts shall be allowed the minimum salary of the higher post if it is more than what they were drawing in their previous posts. But those employees who are already drawing salary equal to or more than the minimum salary of the new posts, shall be allowed the next stage salary in the appointed posts.

¶98

Persons who are not University employees, but are directly recruited to the University posts shall be allowed the minimum salary of the recruited posts. However, if these persons are already drawing more than the minimum of the post for which appointed, their salary may be fixed at the next stage in the salary scale. If, however, the Selection Committee recommends any other higher salary for direct recruits, specific reasons for such recommendation should be furnished in future for the consideration of the Board, along with the panel.

¶99

14 -

¶100

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶101

In all cases of appointments of teachers, where the candidates appointed possess higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed for the post, additional weightage shall be given at the following rates:

¶102

a) For M.Sc's where the prescribed minimum qualification is only B.Sc., for the post - one additional increment.

¶103

b) For Ph.D's where the prescribed minimum qualification is only B.Sc. - two additional increments.

¶104

c) For Ph.D's where the prescribed minimum qualification is only M.Sc. - one additional increment.

¶105

These guide lines shall be applicable from now onwards and the pay of persons appointed by the Board in its meeting held in May 20, 1966, onwards should be re-fixed accordingly.

¶106

The Board was alive to fixation of pay of various employees and in all cases, it had given the benefit of protection of the last drawn scale of pay. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled for fixation of his salary at the next stage in the salary scale applicable to the post of Professor on the

¶107

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶108

date of his appointment at UAS, Bengaluru. Rule 41-A of KCSR also deals with a similar situation and makes it vivid that the petitioner was entitled to protection of his last drawn pay.

¶109

Thus, when the petitioner was appointed as the Professor at UAS, Bengaluru, the scale of pay should have been identical with the scale of pay of the post that he last held. Thus, his pay is required to be fixed at the stage which was equal to the pay drawn by him in the post last held by him. This stands to reason, as the petitioner, did not resign from services at UAS, Raichur to report to duty at UAS, Bengaluru and therefore, he could not be expected to receive a far lesser salary than what he was receiving at UAS, Raichur. Therefore, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 warrants interference. Hence, the following

¶110

ORDER

¶111

i) This writ petition is allowed .

¶112

ii) The impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 dated 02.11.2018 is quashed. The letter bearing No.PÀÈE 43 PÀÈ«zsÁ

¶113

NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶114

16 -

¶115

2017 dated 27.03.2018 addressed by

¶116

respondent No.1 to Vice Chancellor, UAS, Dharwad (Annexure-R1) shall not be given effect to.

¶117

iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to forward a proposal for re-fixation of the salary of the petitioner by granting pay protection as on the date of his appointment as Professor at UAS, Bengaluru based on his last drawn salary at UAS, Raichur and consequently, grant all benefits such as pay revision, pension, gratuity etc. The respondent No.1 shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

¶118

iv) The respondent No.2 shall forward the proposal as mentioned above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The respondent No.1 shall consider the same within a period

¶119

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:36202 WP No. 5746 of 2020

¶120

of three months thereafter and pass

¶121

appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶122

v) It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall be entitled to arrears, after re-fixation of pay, revision of pay, re-fixation of pension

¶123

etc.,

¶124

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶125

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Dr Vasudevan S N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Vasudevan S N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prakash M Dhareshwara Vs the State of Karnataka

B.V. Veena Vs State of Karnataka

Ramappa Vs the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Retired Employees Welfare Association (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddalinga Murthy Vs Chief Secretary

Waseem Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka