Partly allowed

N. Narasimhaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024WP/6880/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Former municipal employees sought pay protection after their services transferred to a Grama Panchayath. The court held Sections 115(1)(g) and 318 protect last drawn salaries until provision is made under Section 112, which was not done, and directed the Director of Municipal Administration to determine the correct pay rate.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to collate details of petitioners' earlier pay and pass orders per Sections 115(1)(g) and 318 by 30.11.2024; arrears payable if entitlement found.

N. Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6880 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

N. NARASIMHAIAH S/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶8

WORKING IN AMMASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDENTS OF AMMASANDRA VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶9

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.08 11:37:17 +0530

¶10

1A SMT. NARASAMMA W/O LATE N. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶11

1B. MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE N. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF CHAKUVALLI

¶13

TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶14

1C SMT. PUSHPALATHA W/O DEVARAJ D/O LATE N. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4 SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶16

KODIGEHALLI POST MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 091.

¶17

1D VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE N. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENTS OF CHAKUVALLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶18

B. B. SHIVANNA S/O. BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS WATER SUPPLIER/BILL COLLECTOR,

¶19

K. S. PARAMESHWARAIAH S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS WATERMAN,

¶20

A. N. MANJUNATH S/O. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS WATERMAN,

¶21

H. R. SHADAKSHARI S/O. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS WATERMAN,

¶22

ALL ARE WORKING IN AMMASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDENTS OF AMMASANDRA VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V.,ADVOCATE)

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶26

AND:

¶27

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶28

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶29

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶30

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶31

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, TURUVEKERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶32

GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AMMASANDRA, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED ORDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE SALARY AND OTHER ALLOWANCES TO THE PETITIONERS BY CONSIDERING AND TREATING THE PETITIONERS AS THE EMPLOY OF THE 6^TH RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYATH AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/10/2017 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE ENTIRE ARREARS OF SALARY AND OTHER ALLOWANCE FOR 48 MONTHS DUE TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petitioners are working as Pump Operators/ Water Suppliers /Watermen / Bill Collectors with the Ammasandra Grama Panchayath [ the sixth respondent ]. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for directions to the respondents to pay salary and allowances treating them as persons whose services are transferred to the sixth respondent. The petitioners have pursued this writ

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶41

petition through a chequered past. The petitioners initially contended that they were not paid any salary from the month of January 2014, and that for the month of December 2013, they were being paid salaries between Rs.15,804/- and Rs.24,400/- per month depending on whether they were working as Watermen or Bill Collectors or Pump Operators.

¶42

This Court, on 16.04.2018, has granted interim orders directing the sixth respondent to pay salaries to the petitioners at the rate as asserted by them for the current month as of the date of the order, and for the previous months. The sixth respondent has not complied with this direction, and therefore, the petitioners have invoked this Court’s contempt jurisdiction alleging deliberate disobedience. In such contempt proceedings in CCC No.1381/2018, the Division Bench, on 30.08.2018, has directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayath Raj and Rural Development Department

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶44

to ensure that the salaries are paid to the petitioners

¶45

from the month of January 2018 in terms of the pay scale applicable to the employees of the Panchayaths.

¶46

The Division Bench has observed that the issue whether the petitioner would be entitled to the pay scale admitted to them when they were in employment with the Town Municipal Council is kept open for consideration subject to certain clarifications.

¶47

Thereafter, on 25.10.2018, the Government

¶48

has addressed its Communication to the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Zilla Panchayath referring to the provisions of Section 115(g) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 [for short, ' the Act '] and informing the aforesaid about its decision to permit the petitioners to draw salary and the emoluments that they were drawing as employees of the concerned Town Municipal Council. Subsequently on 15.11.2018, the Chief Executive

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶51

Officer, Zilla Panchayath has issued a Memorandum fixing pay scale and emoluments at Rs.11,000-400 per month. The contempt proceedings in CCC Nos.1381-1385/2018 are closed on 16.11.2018 reserving liberty to the petitioners to move this Court for further payment of any amount. The petitioners admittedly are being paid at this rate.

¶52

On 26.02.2019, this Court has disposed of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file representations for consideration of their grievances, but a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.109296/2019 [S-RES] has set aside this order and restored the writ petition for reconsideration observing that the issue of the petitioners' entitlement to a particular pay scale and allowance is not decided and that such decision shall be in the light of the observation as to the proceedings referred to above.

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶54

Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners' specific case is that, given the provisions of Sections 115 and 318 of the Act, their salaries and emoluments that they were drawing as employees of the Adityapattana Town Municipal Council are protected, and the learned counsel contends the following in support of this contention.

¶55

[A] It cannot be disputed that the petitioners were appointed with the Adityapattana Town Municipal Council, Turuvekere, and with the dissolution of this Town Municipal Council, three erstwhile Mandala Panchayath were constituted for the local area.

¶56

[B] The petitioners' services were assigned to the Dandinashivara Mandala Panchayath [one of the three Mandala Panchayaths so constituted], and with the Panchayaths being constituted under the Act, the

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶59

petitioners’ services stood transferred / assigned to the Ammasandra Grama Panchayath [ the sixth respondent ].

¶60

[C] The sixth respondent, as could be seen from Annexure-C [ as also Acquittance Roll for the month of January 2014 ], paid the petitioners according to the pay scale that they were admitted to as employees of the said Town Municipal Council.

¶61

Sri Naveen J.N., the learned counsel for the

¶62

fourth to sixth respondents, submits that the petitioners cannot draw any support from the fact that they have been paid at a particular rate until January 2014 because such salary and emoluments were paid by mistake and without their salary being fixed as is contemplated under Section 112 of the Act. As regards the Government's stand, Sri Prince Isac submits that, as is informed by the Communication dated 25.10.2018, the State

¶63

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶64

Government is categorical that given the provisions of Section 115 (g) of the Act, the petitioners will be entitled to draw salary and emoluments at the rate that they were drawing as the employees of the concerned Town Municipal Council.

¶65

When during the course of hearing, this Court called upon Sri Naveen J.N. and Sri Prince Isac to furnish a copy of the notification issued for the constitution of the Ammasandra Grama Panchayath with the dissolution of the Dandinashivara Mandala Panchayath. Sri Naveen J.N. submits that according to his instructions, his clients are not able to lay their hand even on a copy of the notification. Sri Prince Isac can only state that he has no instruction on this aspect. The question whether the petitioners are entitled for salary and emoluments at the rate of Rs.11000-400/- in terms of the State Government’s Communication dated 15.11.2018 must be examined

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶68

in the light of the factual matrix and the relevant provisions of the Act.

¶69

On facts, this Court must record that the

¶70

respondents do not contest that the petitioners initially entered service as employees with the Adityapattana Town Municipal Council, Turuvekere Taluk and with the dissolution of this Town Municipal Council and dissolution of its succeeding body [ Dandinashivara Mandala Panchayath ], the sixth respondent [ Ammasandra Grama Panchayath ] is constituted. The sixth respondent, until January 2014, has paid salary to the petitioners at the rate between Rs.15,804/- and Rs.24,400/- depending on whether they were working as Water Suppliers/ Bill Collectors /Pump Operators though it is contended that it is because of a mistake.

¶71

The terms upon which the Grama

¶72

Panchayaths constituted after the Mandala Panchayaths i.e., the terms of the notification issued

¶73

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶74

in this regard are not placed on record. If indeed the constitution is because of a notification under Section 115 of the Act, given the provisions of subclause (g) thereto, the petitioners' salary and emoluments that they were drawing as employees of the Adityapattana Town Municipal Council will be protected subject to certain terms. The provisions of

¶75

Section 115((1)(g) reads as under:

¶76

"115. Effect of conversion of a [smaller urban area or a transitional area into panchayat area].- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the Government may, after previous publication by notification, direct that the local area constituting [any smaller urban area] shall from such date as may be specified therein (hereinafter referred to as the specified date), be a panchayat area and in respect thereof, on and from such specified date, the following consequences shall ensue, namely:-¹

¶77

(g) all officers and servants in the employ of the Municipal Council immediately before the specified date shall be officers and servants of the Grama Panchayat under this Act, and shall, until other provision

¶78

1 The other sub clauses are not extracted because of the nature of the controversy.

¶79

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶80

is made in accordance with the provisions of this Act, receive salaries and allowances subject to the conditions of service to which they were entitled for subject immediately before such date:

¶81

The underlining is by this Court

¶82

This Court must next refer to the provisions of Section 318 of the Act. The erstwhile Karnataka

¶83

Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayaths Samitis and Mandala Panchayaths and Nyaya Panchayaths Act, 1983 stands repealed by the Panchayath Raj Act but subject to the savings as is contemplated under Section 318. These provisions also protect the salary and allowances of those who were with the concerned Mandal Panchayaths and Zilla Panchayaths inasmuch as the relevant provisions read that the repeal shall not affect salary and allowances payable to such employees until other provisions are made under the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 318 of the Act read as under:

¶84

318. Repeal and Savings.- The Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal

¶85

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶86

Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983

¶87

(Karnataka Act 20 of 1985 ) is hereby repealed:

¶88

Provided that such repeal shall not affect,² -

¶89

Provided further that:-

¶90

(a) subject to the preceding provision, anything done or any action taken (including any appointment or delegation made, tax, fee or cess imposed, notification, order, instrument or direction issued, rule, regulation, form, bye- law or scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or licence granted or registration effected) under the said Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act;

¶91

(b) every officer and servant of a Mandal Panchayat or Zilla parishad, other than such class of servants as the Government may specify by order, shall until other provisions are made receive the salary and allowances and be subject to the conditions of service to which they were entitled immediately before the commencement of this section.

¶92

It cannot be gainsaid, in the light of the

¶93

afore provisions, and the undisputed facts, that the

¶94

2 Sub-clauses [a] to [d] are not extracted as they relate to saving the rights and liabilities under the erstwhile Act.

¶95

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶96

salary and emoluments that the petitioners were drawing as employees of Town Municipal Council would be protected until other provisions are made under this Act . It is common case that this other arrangement as is contemplated would only be when a notification is issued under Section 112 of the Act

¶97

which reads as under:

¶98

112. Staffing pattern and schedule of employees.- (1) The Government may, by order, specify the staffing pattern, the scales of pay and mode of recruitment of staff of Grama Panchayats.

¶99

(2) The Grama Panchayat shall, subject to sub-section (1), determine and submit for approval of the Chief Executive Officer a schedule of employees specifying the designations and grades and the salaries and allowances payable to its officers other than the [Panchayat Development Officer, Secretary and Accounts Assistant] required for carrying out the duties imposed upon the Grama Panchayat by or under this Act."

¶100

12. The Government admittedly has not

¶101

issued any notification as is contemplated therein and in that event, especially given the provisions of Section 115 (g) and Section 318 of the Act, the

¶102

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶103

petitioners must be paid last drawn salary and emoluments as employees of the Town Municipal Council. However, the question as to the rate at which such salary and emoluments the petitioners were drawing as employees of the Adityapattana Town Municipal Council is not free of dispute. The petitioners contend that they were being paid between Rs.15,804/- and Rs.24,400/- depending on

¶104

the nature of their engagement. The Grama Panchayath [ the sixth respondent ] can only state that the petitioners have been paid at the aforementioned rate by mistake and not because it has verified that they were drawing such salary as employees of either the concerned Town Municipal Council or Mandala Panchayath.

¶105

In fact, Sri Naveen J.N. endeavors to

¶106

place on record an assertion that the petitioners were being paid only a sum of Rs.980/- with certain emoluments when they were employed with the Town

¶107

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶108

Municipal Council, but this also is not helpful as it relates, even according to the concerned respondent, not as of the date of the constitution of the sixth respondent but as of the petitioners’ initial employment. The fifth respondent has fixed the salary and emoluments for Watermen/ Valvemen /Pump Operators vide the Memorandum dated 15.11.2018 but that is based on the State Government's notification for the purpose of fixing minimum wages.

¶109

This Court must, without hesitation, opine that the notification issued by the State Government for the purposes of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 could not have been relied upon given the provisions of both Sections 115(1)(g) and 318 and the proviso as is referred to above. Further, the State Government's communication dated 25.10.2018 is not issued under Section 112 of the Act. Therefore,

¶110

the petitioners' claim for pay protection under

¶111

NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶112

Sections 115(1)(g) and Section 318 of the Act cannot be defeated either by the State Government's Communication dated 25.10.2018 or any notification issued for the purposes of Minimum Wages Act or the acceptance thereof.

¶113

This Court must further opine that the concerned authority must necessarily call for all information and take a decision on the rate at which the petitioners were being paid when the Adityapattana Town Municipal Council was dissolved with the constitution of the Dandinashivara Mandal Panchayath and the later constitution of the Grama Panchayath [ the sixth respondent ]. When queried, the submissions are that the Director of Municipal Administration [ the second respondent ] will have to collate all material and take appropriate decision. This Court, given the chequered past, must direct the second respondent to conclude the exercise

¶114

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶115

expeditiously after extending due opportunity to the petitioners. Hence, the following:

¶116

ORDER

¶117

[A] The petition is allowed-in-part directing the second respondent to take every measure that may be necessary to collate all details as regards the rate of pay/salary and emoluments that the petitioners were paid as employees of the Adityapattana Town Municipal Council and Dandinashivara Mandala Panchayath and pass orders in the light of the provisions of Section 115(1)(g) and Section 318 of the Act as extracted.

¶118

[B] The second respondent shall complete this exercise at the earliest but not later than 30.11.2024 and to facilitate this exercise, the petitioners are reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the second

¶119

20 -

¶120

NC: 2024:KHC:25916 WP No. 6880 of 2018

¶121

respondent within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶122

[C] The first petitioner has died, and his legal representatives have come on record. The second to fourth petitioners have retired, and the fifth petitioner continues to be in employment with the Ammasandra Grama Panchayath, Turuvekere. The petitioners shall be paid with arrears subject to the decision as aforesaid without any due, if found, that they are entitled to.

¶123

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶124

NV,SA

N. Narasimhaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Narasimhaiah 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

Karthik M S/O Late Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Pamesh Kattimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N R Nandish Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Shankar B P Vs the Karnataka Veterinary

Umadevi Vs Principal Secretary

Smt L Bhagyalakshmi Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Bwssb)