Sri. Raju. B. M. Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11452 WP No. 3861 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3861 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAJU. B.M. S/O. LATE B. MAILAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, FLAT NO. 103, 1^ST FLOOR, J.J. GARDEN APARTMENT, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, PF LAYOUT, MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K.N.NITHISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, 3^RD FLOOR, 5^TH STAGE, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3;

¶17

SRI. RAJASHEKAR K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11452 WP No. 3861 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTION OF 3^RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.06.2023 BEARING NO.LAW/HRC/39/2020 AT ANNEXUREG.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to implement the direction of respondent No.3 dated 21.06.2023 bearing No.LAW/HRC/39/2020.

¶23

The petitioner was a District Judge, who has retired from service and was appointed as an Additional Registrar in the respondent No.2 on 29.06.2016 for a period of six months and the same was extended from time to time till September, 2023. The petitioner contends that there was a revision of pay scale of its employees by the State Government. However, in respect of retired employees who were re-employed, the State Government had approved granting them the basic pay as consolidated pay and accordingly, they were granted

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:11452 WP No. 3861 of 2024

¶26

consolidated pay of Rs.51,550/-. The respondent No.2 sought clarification from the respondent No.3 whether the petitioner who was appointed as Additional Registrar was entitled to the revised pay scale in view of applicability of report of Second National Judicial Pay Commission (henceforth referred to as 'SNJPC'). The respondent No.2 purportedly prepared a calculation sheet of the entitlement of the petitioner and sought sanction from the respondent No.3 on 16.10.2020. The respondent No.2 again addressed a communication to the respondent No.3 for re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner with effect from 01.08.2018 subject to final adjudication by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding applicability of SNJPC. This was followed by another communication dated 16.05.2022 by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3. Thereafter, on 17.01.2023, a communication was addressed by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 regarding sanction of SNJPC pay and he reiterated that on 23.10.2018, the staff working on contract basis are given concurrence by the Government with effect from 01.08.2018. The petitioner contends that on 21.06.2023, the respondent No.3 informed the respondent No.2 that under Rule 313(b) of the Karnataka

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:11452 WP No. 3861 of 2024

¶29

Civil Services Rules, a sum of Rs.22,457/- was fixed as basic pay and the petitioner is entitled to DA/HRA/CCA on the revised basic pay. Despite the above, it is claimed that the respondent No.2 has not made any payment. However, the respondent No.2 again addressed a communication to the respondent No.3 for clarification and guidance, though there was no need to do so. The petitioner claims that he had submitted a representation dated 06.12.2023 to implement the communication addressed by the respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 dated 21.06.2023. Since the respondent No.2 has not considered the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 has already addressed a communication dated 21.06.2023 to the respondent No.2 to grant benefit to the petitioner by fixing the pay scale at Rs.22,457/- under Rule 313(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. He therefore, contends that it is for the respondent No.2 to take necessary steps to implement the said communication addressed by the respondent No.3.

¶31

5 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:11452 WP No. 3861 of 2024

¶33

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.2, who contends that the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of six months initially and that he had agreed to the terms and conditions of the appointment, which inter alia provided that the petitioner shall not be entitled to pension, DA and provident fund and that he would not be entitled to any other benefits other than what was provided under the terms and conditions of the appointment. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any other benefits than what was agreed upon. Therefore, the respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of revised pay scale as per the recommendation of SNJPC.

¶34

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions.

¶35

(i) The respondent No.1 has filed statement of objections contending inter alia that the service of the petitioner was continued from time to time and that the State Government by its letter No.Law-25-HRC-2018 dated 23.10.2018 had appointed the staff on contract basis and they were granted minimum basic pay of the revised pay scale 2018

¶36

6 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:11452 WP No. 3861 of 2024

¶38

in their respective posts with effect from 01.08.2018. It is contended that the respondent No.2 had requested the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to fix the salary in SNJPC scale and provide grant for payment of salary arrears to the petitioner, who was appointed as Additional Registrar on 01.07.2016 on contract basis. The respondent No.2 did not obtain approval of the respondent Nos.1 and 3 for the said appointment and that the proposal was forwarded for post-facto approval of appointment of the petitioner. It is contended that the opinion of the Financial Department was sought for granting post-facto approval to the appointment of the petitioner and that the Finance Department vide its letters dated 30.01.2021, 29.06.2021, 08.10.2021 and 14.03.2022 requested to provide information on certain points to review the proposal, which was submitted by the respondent No.2 to the Finance Department. Thereafter, the Finance Department had advised the respondent No.2 to get the approval from the State Cabinet. However, the respondent No.2 ignored this and submitted a proposal for re-fixing the pay scale of the petitioner. It is therefore, contended that the case of the petitioner can be looked into only after the State Cabinet decides granting

¶39

7 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:11452 WP No. 3861 of 2024

¶41

approval to his appointment. It is contended that the State Cabinet granted ex-post facto approval on 24.03.2023 and also approved fixation of pay of the petitioner in SNJPC scale and for payment of arrears. The proposal of the Cabinet was submitted before the Finance Department for opinion and that the Finance Department had opined as follows:-

¶42

"Shri Raju B.M., Additional Registrar, Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, the pension will be taken into account in fixing the re-appointment pay. As the matter of revision of pension in SNJPC pay scales is not yet final, it would not be appropriate to fix re-appointment pay for them considering the revised SNJPC pay scale. Therefore, his re-appointment pay has been fixed at Rs.22,457/- per Rule 313(b) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules. Along with this re-appointment can get DA/HRA/CCAs available on the revised basic pay of Rs.58,930/- to the basic pay he was getting at the time of retirement. But he was told that he could not get any deficiency allowance on the pension he was getting and a copy of the terms and conditions was issued separately and sent as attached". Regarding the above opinion given by the Finance Department, the information is

¶43

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11452 WP No. 3861 of 2024

¶44

conveyed to the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission vide letter dated 21.06.2023."

¶45

(ii) Therefore, it is contended that the respondent No.2

¶46

vide its letter dated 02.09.2023 has sought for opinion of the Finance Department and that the issue is not considered by the Finance Department. Therefore, it is contended that the proposal to fix pay as per SNJPC scale and payment of arrears would be considered after the Finance Department clears the proposal.

¶47

The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 reiterated the above contentions.

¶48

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

¶49

It appears that respondent No.3 in terms of its letter dated 21.06.2023 had stated that while considering fixing the pay of re-appointees, the pension that is sanctioned to them would be taken into consideration. In so far as pension

¶50

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11452 WP No. 3861 of 2024

¶51

payable by granting the SNJPC scale, the same is still not decided and hence, the question of re-determining pay and pension payable to the petitioner based on the revised SNJPC scale does not arise. However, the respondent No.3 opined that under Rule 313(b) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, pay scale of the petitioner could be determined at a sum of Rs.22,457/and he would be entitled to DA, HRA, CCA on the basis of the revised pay scale at Rs.58,930/-. Therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were bound to take further steps to grant the entitlement of the petitioner, while the SNJPC scale was pending approval. It is needless to mention that respondent No.3 would consider granting SNJPC pay scale after the Finance Department considers the approval by the State Cabinet.

¶52

Consequently, this writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent No.2 to take steps to grant entitlement of the petitioner as per letter dated 21.06.2023 addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. It is needless to mention that the entitlement of the petitioner for revised Second National Judicial Pay Commission scale shall be considered by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 after the Finance Department considers the case in accordance with law. This

¶53