Sri B P Hanumatha Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri B P Hanumatha Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the Tribunal's order dated 15.03.2023 in Application No.1372/2022 and the first respondent's order dated 10.12.2021 quashed; petitioner declared entitled to pay/retiral benefits including pension based on the salary drawn just prior to the order dated 10.12.2021, with interest permissible under the Rules; petitioner granted liberty to file a certified copy of the order with the first respondent within four weeks, whereupon the first respondent shall forward appropriate records to the eighth respondent for due settlement within eight weeks; registry directed to furnish a copy of the order to the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Karnataka, to ensure it reaches the Under Secretary who signed the order dated 10.12.2021.

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent's order dated 10.12.2021 re-fixing the petitioner's pay scale was lawful, given that the order dated 09.05.2006 was issued in implementation of the Tribunal's direction dated 28.10.2005 which was never called in question by the respondents. +1 more

Court's answer

The respondents, not having availed the remedy of challenging the Tribunal's order dated 28.10.2005 and having admitted the petitioner to the benefits of the order dated 09.05.2006 issued in implementation of that direction, did not have jurisdiction to issue the order dated 10.12.2021.

Ratio / Principle

The proposition that the law does not envisage negative equality and that benefits granted by mistake confer no right on others, though indisputable, could not be cited as a reason to rescind the order dated 09.05.2006 because the Tribunal's Order dated 28.10.2005 was not called in question; if the respondents wished to challenge that order they should have availed the remedy even after the order dated 09.05.2006.

Key takeaways

Since the order dated 10.12.2021 visited the petitioner with financial consequences (his retiral benefits having been settled in terms of that pay scale), an opportunity to show cause should have been extended to him before such an order was made.ratio¶59
The Tribunal overlooked material circumstances in sustaining the order dated 10.12.2021; consequently interference was warranted setting aside not only the Tribunal's order but also the order dated 10.12.2021, in light of the admitted fact that the petitioner's retiral benefits were settled in terms of the pay scale under that order.ratio¶85

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — pay fixation/re-fixation — Karnataka. Petitioner, a Craft Teacher Grade-I appointed in 1988, obtained pay-scale fixation through successive proceedings (W.P. No. 24893/1999; Tribunal Applications Nos. 5829/2001 and 7128/2001 culminating in the Tribunal's order dated 28.10.2005) implemented by the respondents' order dated 09.05.2006, under which he drew salary for over sixteen years. Without notice, and invoking only the principle that benefits granted by mistake confer no enforceable right (no 'negative equality'), the respondents issued the order dated 10.12.2021 re-fixing his pay at Rs.1,040-Rs.1,900/-; the Tribunal declined interference (order dated 15.03.2023 in Application No.1372/2022) as prospective and prejudice-free. Held: the order dated 09.05.2006 flowed from an unchallenged Tribunal direction, and absent a challenge to that direction the respondents had no jurisdiction to rescind it; an order carrying financial consequences — the petitioner's retiral benefits having been settled accordingly — required an opportunity to show cause; negative-equality reasoning could not substitute for such a challenge. Writ petition allowed; the Tribunal's order dated 15.03.2023 and the order dated 10.12.2021 quashed; the petitioner declared entitled to pay/retiral benefits, including pension, based on the salary drawn immediately before 10.12.2021, with interest permissible under the Rules; time-bound directions issued for settlement through the Accountant General (eighth respondent) and for the order to be brought to the notice of the Under Secretary who signed the order dated 10.12.2021.