The Chief Secretary Vs Lakshmi Venkata Giri H D

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2023 PASSED IN WP NO.52470/2019 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST AND ETC.

¶71

5 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:48025-DB WA No. 746 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINERY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶75

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶76

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶77

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶78

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶79

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 19.07.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.52470/2019. The writ petitioners (15 in number) are the Court Managers working in High Court as well as in the District Courts.

¶80

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

¶81

the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners were appointed pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court for creation of posts of Court Manager. It is further contended that the Apex Court, by the interim orders passed in the writ petitions had also directed the continuance in service of Court Managers appointed by various High Courts and thereafter, had passed a final order directing regularization and fixation of pay and other benefits to the Court Managers as also regulation of

¶82

6 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:48025-DB WA No. 746 of 2024

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

their duties and responsibilities. It is submitted that Annexure-A-Notification issued by the High Court for appointment of Court Managers specifically stated that during the term of appointment, they would be entitled to the monthly pay of Rs.50,000/- to be increased by 10% every year.

¶86

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

¶87

submits that the writ petitioners were working as Court Managers from the initial date of appointment i.e., 2011 onwards without any break in service. It is therefore contended that they are entitled to pay as stated in Annexure-A i.e., Rs.50,000/- with an increase of 10% every year. It is submitted that they were paid Rs.50,000/- with additional increase of 10% every year till 01.04.2017. Thereafter, on the ground that there is an artificial break of a day, the increments were not granted to them. They had approached this Court and by the judgment under appeal, this Court had held as under;

¶88

"8. Having taken note of the terms and conditions referred to at Annexure-A, on careful examination of the documents produced by the respondents herein, particularly, Annexure-R7 dated 07.12.2019, and order dated 07.01.2020, wherein the salary statement of the

¶89

7 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:48025-DB WA No. 746 of 2024

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

Court Managers shows that salary enhancement by 10% has been granted up to 2016-2017. However, there was a break in service on 01.04.2017 and thereafter, from the year 2017, 10% has been enhanced each year to the initial salary of Rs.50,000/- as shown in the revised actual salary to be payable as per Annexure-R8. In that view of the matter, I am of the view, that there is no material produced before this Court with regard to the break in service of the petitioners and further, in the event, if there is non payment of salary to the Court Managers, though their service has been availed by the respondents on 01.04.2017, it derogates Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

¶93

9. In that view of the matter, as there is no material produced by the respondent – Government to establish that an order of breakup has been passed on 01.04.2017, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶94

10. In that view of the matter, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are directed to conform to the terms and conditions of appointment as envisaged at Annexure-A dated 31.05.2011 and same has to be honoured in letter and spirit by enhancement of 10% every year in so far as monthly pay is concerned.

¶95

11. With these observations, the respondents herein are directed to enhance the salary of Court Managers /petitioners herein in terms of serial No.2 in the terms

¶96

8 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:48025-DB WA No. 746 of 2024

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

and conditions of appointment as mentioned at AnnexureA dated 31.05.2011, and pay arrears if any. The said exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

¶100

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that

¶101

the observations made by the learned Single Judge that there was no material produced with regard to break in service of the writ petitioners was factually erroneous and that the statement of objections filed by respondents No.1, 3, 4 as well as the statement of objections of respondent No.2, which was accompanied with the document at Annexure-R1 would show that as a matter of fact, there was a break in service of one day in the existing contract extended to the writ petitioners.

¶102

It is submitted that in view of the fact that there was a day's break in the services, they were not entitled to 10% enhancement of their pay. Further it is contended that the petitioners who had not challenged the orders by which break in service was ordered cannot contend that they are entitled to continuous increments by 10% every year inspite of the said order.

¶103

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48025-DB WA No. 746 of 2024

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on

¶106

the other hand, submits that the post of Court Managers was created in the High Courts as well as in the District Courts vide the recommendations of 13^th Finance Commission (2010-2015).

¶107

The Apex Court, by an interim order, had specifically directed that the recommendations of the Finance Commission should be implemented and the posts of Court Managers must be created in each District to assist the Principal District and Sessions Judge and two posts of Court Managers should be created in each High Court. The writ petitioners had been appointed pursuant to such directions issued by the Apex Court. The Apex Court had further directed that the service of the persons who were appointed by the various High Courts as Court Managers must be continued. Further, by the order dated 02.08.2018, the Apex Court had specifically directed that the Court Managers who were already working must be regularized by the State Government as their assistance was found necessary for a proper administrative set up in the Courts. Thereafter, on the basis of the report of the SNJPC dated 04.02.2022, further directions were also issued with

¶108

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:48025-DB WA No. 746 of 2024

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

regard to the duties and responsibilities of Court Managers as also their pay and other service benefits.

¶111

It is submitted that the writ petitioners therefore

¶112

had a right to be continued in service on the basis of the orders passed by the Apex Court and that the order passed by the Government of Karnataka dated 30.03.2017, which is produced as Annexrue-R1 along with the statement of objections cannot have any over riding effect over the orders passed by the Apex Court. It is therefore contended that the contention raised by the Government that there is an artificial break in the services of Court Managers cannot be accepted.

¶113

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that creation of posts of Court Managers as also the directions to make appointments and to continue the services of the persons who are appointed as also to regularize their services were issued by the Apex Court. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the order of the Government of Karnataka dated 30.03.2017 created a break in service and that the writ petitioners would not be entitle to

¶114

11 -

¶115

NC: 2025:KHC:48025-DB WA No. 746 of 2024

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

10% increment after the date of Annxure-R1, cannot be accepted.

¶118

We are of the opinion that in the facts and

¶119

circumstances of the instant case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is completely legal and valid. We find no grounds to interfere with the exercise jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal therefore fails and same is accordingly, dismissed .

¶120

No order as to costs.

¶121

Pending IA, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶122

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶123

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶124

PN

¶125

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6