Group C and D employees of Mysore City Corporation challenged a government order extending equal pay for equal work only prospectively, though 308 similarly placed employees got the benefit in 2012. Holding the prospective condition discriminatory and unsupported by reasons, the Court quashed it and directed retrospective payment from 05.12.2012.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:13495 WP No. 6518 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6443 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6518 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 6443 OF 2024 (S-RES) IN WP NO.6518/2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13495 WP No. 6518 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6443 of 2024
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 SMT GEETHADEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THAT PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. NAAE 104 ACM 2013, BANGALORE DATED 07/11/2022 AT ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE R1 WHICH IMPOSES A CONDITION TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WP NO.6443/2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
NEAR WATER TANK MYSORE-570017
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VIVEKANANDA T P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT SUKANYA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT GEETHADEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THAT PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. NaAE104 ACM 2013, BANGALORE DATED 07/11/2022 AT ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE R1 WHICH IMPOSES A CONDITION TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petitions are filed by the petitioners,
who are group C and D employees of respondent No.2-
Corporation assailing the government order dated 07.11.2022 as per Annexure-K, issued by respondent No.1 insofar as extending equal pay for equal work
prospectively.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioners are employees of respondent No.2-
Corporation. The petitioners were initially working as contract employees. The State Government, vide order dated 13.11.2006, abolished contract labour and therefore, upon the abolishment of contract labor and in terms of government orders dated 03.04.1986, 16.05.1986 and 20.08.1986, the employees of respondent No.2-Corporation, including the petitioners, made a request for payment of equal pay for equal work. Several proposals were forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 in that regard. This led to the government constituting a committee and a report was secured in regard to the payment of equal pay for equal work. Based on the report submitted by the committee,
respondent No.1-State, vide order dated 05.12.2012, directed for payment of equal pay for equal work insofar as 308 employees are concerned.
sent the proposal to respondent No.1 on 16.04.2013. Respondent No.1-State, however, failed to consider the proposal sent by respondent No.2-Corporation and therefore the petitioners were compelled to knock the doors of the writ court in W.P.57172-57257/2015. This Court, vide order dated 20.07.2017, allowed the writ petition and directed respondent No.1 to pass appropriate
orders by taking cognizance of approval granted to 308 employees, who were found to be similarly placed to that of petitioners.
also taken cognizance of the assurance given by respondent No.2-Corporation in the communication dated 10.02.2014, addressed to respondent No.1-State expressing their willingness to accept the additional burden in the event, the benefit of equal pay for equal work is extended prospectively.
this Court to refer to the said communication, which reads as under:
ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ (1) & (2) ರಪತ�ದನ�ಯ�ೖಸೂರುಮ�ಾನಗರ�ಾ��ೆಯ ಒಳಚರಂ� !ಾಗದಒಳಚರಂ� | ಸ�ಚ"#ಾ�ಾಯ$ದ�� 139 %ೌಕರರು �ಾಗೂ ಮ�ನ (ೕರು ಶು*+ೕಕರಣ ಘಟಕಗಳ�� �ಾಯ$(ವ$ಹ1ೆ 2ಾಡು45ರುವ 86 ಗು456ೆ7ಾರರ%ೌಕರರುಗ86ೆಸ2ಾನ�ೆಲಸ�ೆ: ಸ2ಾನ ;ೇತನವನು< (ೕಡುವಂ#ೆ*%ಾಂಕ : 28.12.2013 ರಂದುತ=ರಸ>4 ಸ!ೆಯನು< ನ?ೆ@ �ೈ6ೊಂ�ರುವ 42ಾ$ನದ «¸ÀÛ ævÀ ವರ*ಯನು< ಈ6ಾಗ�ೇಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ (3) ರ��ಸ��ಸ�ಾB7ೆ . ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಸ2ಾನ�ೆಲಸ�ೆ: ಸ2ಾನ;ೇತನವನು< (ೕಡುವಂ#ೆ ಸೂಕ5 ಆ7ೇಶವನು< �ೊರ�ಸುವಂ#ೆ ಸ�ಾ$ರ�ೆ: E�ಾರಸುF 2ಾ�7ೆ�ಾಗೂಸ2ಾನ�ೆಲಸ�ೆ: ಸ2ಾನ;ೇತನ (ೕ�ದGೆ ತಗಲುವ ವH#ಾHಸದ Iತ5ವನು< ನಗರ�ಾ��ೆಯ ಸಂಪನೂJಲಗ8ಂದ ಭLಸಲು ಬದN;ಾBರುತ57ೆ . ಸದL ಷಯದ ಬ6ೆP ಸ�ಾ$ರದಅನುIೕದ%ೆ�ೋರ�ಾB7ೆ .
NC: 2024:KHC:13495 WP No. 6518 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6443 of 2024
7. On meticulous examination of materials on
record, this Court would find that 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.2Corporation. Respondent No.2 sent a proposal on 16.04.2013. There is absolute 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
NC: 2024:KHC:13495 WP No. 6518 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6443 of 2024
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:13495 WP No. 6518 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6443 of 2024
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State could restrict equal pay for equal work benefits to prospective effect when similarly placed employees received them from 05.12.2012.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.57172-57257/2015Relied on¶67
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Manjesh B S
Sri Hareesha
State of Karnataka
Mysore City Corporation
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
