Rao Somashekara
& Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & ANR [1997] INSC 735 (16 September 1997)
SUJATA
V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
W I T
H (Writ Petition Nos. 827/90, 822, 416 & 718/91)
M.
JAGANNADHA RAO, J.
These
five writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India are all
connected and raise the same questions. The petitioners are Secondary School
Teachers in the State of Karnataka serving in Government and
Government aided Secondary Schools.
Certain
Secondary grade teachers in the former State of Hyderabad which were allotted
to the State of Karnataka as on 1.11.1956. After reorganisation,
the corresponding posts in former State of Mysore were equate with the posts of
the allotted personnel. There was revision of pay scale on 1.1.1957 and again
on 1.1.1961 but the disparity in pay scales was allowed to continue. This
anomaly was continued till 1.1.1970 - for nearly fourteen years, when for the
first time under the concerned Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules),
1970 which came into force on 1.1.1970, based on the report of the pay
Commission headed by Justice Tukol, the scales were brought on par with scales
of allotted Hyderabad officers prospectively by enhancing the scales of the all
Karnataka teachers w.e.f. 1.1.1970. But the grievance of the Secondary School
teachers of Government of Karnataka for the period from 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969
continued and has not been removed. That is the subject of these writ
petitions.
It is
stated that, so far as disparities in pay among Mysore and Karnataka Primary
school teachers on the one had and allotted Hyderabad primary school teachers
are concerned, Government orders as late as 1986 showed that those grievance
also arise out of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 in respect of pay scale
disparities and have been removed by the Government of Karnataka. On that
basis, petitioners, Secondary school teachers of Mysore and Karnataka claim that distance of time is no bar to
relieve their legitimate grievance for the period 1.1.57 to 31.12.69.
In
support of this contention, reliance is placed on two sets of facts.
Firstly
the non-allottee primary school teachers of Karnataka filed Writ Petition
No.2801 of 1971 in the Karnataka High Court for equating their pay scale with
the Hyderabad area primary school teachers. The
High Court dismissed the said writ petition on 10.1.1975 on the ground of laches
after however holding that the denial of equal pay was discriminatory. In SLP
No.908 of 1975 preferred by the Writ petitioners therein to this Court in Sri Raghuram
Hegde & others vs. State of Mysore, a compromise was arrived at with
prospective effect from 1.1.1978 stating that 50% of the difference between the
pay scales will be given. The pay as on 1.1.1978 of the Karnataka Primary School teachers was to be increased by 50% prospectively w.e.f.
1.1.78. The scales were increased only for purpose of computation and fixation
of pay but not for payment of arrears upto 31.12.77. Various details as
contained in the compromise so arrived at were incorporated in the proceedings
of the Government of Karnataka dated 10.8.1979. Again, when the above
compromise was being implemented, the Government stopped the benefit of this
compromise from accruing to primary school teachers recruited in the State of Karnataka after 1.11.56. This was challenged
successfully in B.T.
Ramaswamy
vs. State of Karnataka (W.P. 54/82 and batch) before the
High Court of Karnataka by judgment dated 6.12 1985. Thereafter Government
issued an order as late as 8.7.1986. extending the benefit of its order dated
19.8.1979 by giving increased scales of pay to all primary school teachers i.e.
not only to those of erstwhile Mysore State but also to the primary teachers
recruited after 1.11.1956.
This
was restricted to primary teachers who were recruited upto 31.12.1969. The
Government directed the payment of the higher pay scale as per their earlier
order dated 10.8.1979 and arrears for the period 1.1.78 to 31.4.1986 were to be
credited to the General Provident Fund Account and the difference payable after
1.1.1986 to the primary school teachers was to be paid in cash. Thus as late as
8.7.96 the state of Karnataka removed grievances of primary teachers in regard
to pay etc. as compared to erstwhile Hyderabad primary teachers allotted to Karnataka.
Secondly,
the Karnataka High Court by judgment dated 7.9.1975 extended the benefits of
the Government order dated 10.8.79 to primary school teachers in grant-in-aid
schemes.
This
was not interfered with by this Court in State of Karnataka vs. A Venkatappayya (CA No.13757/96
dated 28.10.97). In that judgment this Court also referred to the dismissal of SLPs
(C) 21003-113 etc. of 1993 dated 22.8.94 whereby this Court refused to
interfere with the order of the State Administrative Tribunal extending the benefits
of the order dated 10.8.79 to the primary school teachers under the local
authorities of Karnataka.
In
view of the above said two positive developments in favour of primary school
teachers, the Secondary school teachers approached the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal in OA 2205 and 2206 of 1987 contending that they should get pay scale equalisation
for the period from 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 also. The Tribunal rejected the
petition the ground of laches on 14.12.1989. Thereafter, the present Writ petitions
have been filed by other Karnataka Secondary Grade Teacher in this Court
claiming eqalisation of pay scales from 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 and payment of
arrears for that period. That is how these writ petitions have arisen.
It is
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners Secondary School teachers
that as late as 1986 and now 1994 and 1996 all pay-scale grievance of primary
school teachers of almost all descriptions arising out of States Reorganisation
Act, have been favourably removed by the State government, but the grievances
of the Secondary School teachers, also arising out of State Reorganisation for
the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 have not been redressed and this is
discriminatory It is pointed out that this was done by even directing the
arrears to be credited t their P.F. account and extending all benefits to
primary teachers recruited after 1.11.1956 upto 31.12.1969. The petitioners
contend that the fixation of 31/12/96 as the
date from which the equality will be maintained is not based on any rational
criteria having nexus with the anomalies arising out of the State Reorganisation
Act. Learned counsel for some of the petitioners Mr. S.R. Bhat argued that in
regard to the period for 1.1.57 to 31.12.69 the very continuance of the grievance
for 14 years after 1.11.1956 till 1.1.1970 was violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel placed strong reliance on the judgment
of this Court in Motor General Traders vs. State of A.P. [1984 (1) SCC 222] and other cases.
On the
other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that on account of State Reorganisation
in 1956, difference in scales of pay between allottee officers and Mysore
officers are bound to arise and are justified on account of historical reasons
attributable to different geographical areas. It is also contended that the
petitioners who are Secondary School teachers, have the petitioners who are
Secondary School teachers, have opted for Karnataka Scales after 1.11.1956 and
cannot now raise these contention. it is also stated that the case of primary
teachers cannot be relied upon to raise a plea of discrimination, even if the
grievances arise out of States Reorganisation. The State has various options
while clearing grievances and if it opts for a particular formula or fixes a
particular date upto which alone the pay scales can be revised. It is not
permissible for the Court of judicial review to interfere with such a choice.
The finances of the State do not permit grant of this benefit to the secondary
school teachers.
This
Court had occasion to go into the question of the temporary nature of the
continuance of existing laws under Section 119 of the States Reorganisation
Act, 1956 and whether delays in rectifying the inequalities arising out of the
said Act should be rectified by the State within any particular time frame. In
State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Bhopal
Sugar Industries Ltd. [1964 (6) SCR 846 (852-854) it was observed that though
continuance of the laws of the old region after the States Reorganisation Act,
1956 by section 119 of that Act was not by itself discriminatory even if it
resulted in differential reactant of persons, objects and transactions in the
new State because of historical reasons, still 'passage of time' could make the
continuance discriminatory. it was observed in the above case that:
"By
the passage of time, considerations of necessity and expediency would be
obliterated, and the ground which justified classification of geographical
regions for historical reasons may cease to be valid. A purely temporary
provision which because of compelling forces justified differential treatment
when the Reorganisation Act was enacted cannot obviously be permitted to assume
permanency, so as to perpetuate that treatment without a rational basis to support
it after the initial expediency and necessity have disappeared." While
accepting that continuance of existing laws in the new State could not be
continued without rational basis, this Court pointed out further as follows:
"But
whether the continuance of unequal laws by itself sustained the plea of
unlawful discrimination in view of changed circumstances could only be
ascertained after a null and thorough enquiry into the continuance of the
grounds on which the inequality could rationally be founded, and the change of
circumstances, if any, which obliterated the compulsion of expediency and
necessity existing at the time when the Reorganisation Act was enacted."
Similar principles were laid down by this Court in H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar
Mutt. etc. vs. The Commissioner.
Hindu
Religious & Charitable Endowments Department & Others [1980 (1) SCR 368
(387-388)] wherein it was observed that the "decision to withdraw the
application of unequal laws to equals cannot be delayed unreasonably because
the relevance of historical reasons .... is bound to wear out with the passage
of time". On the facts of the case, the Court refrained from striking down
the provision because the period under consideration was just five or six years
and there was no adequate data available to decide the question whether the
continuance of the legislation amounted to hostile discrimination. The above
rulings were followed in Motor General Traders vs. State of A.P. cited by the petitioner's counsel.
It is
to be noticed that in these writ petitions, after 1.11.1956, the disparities in
the scales of pay continued till 1.1.970 and it was only from that date that,
on the basis of Justice Tukol Commission report, the scales of the Mysore/Karnataka
Secondary School teachers were brought on par with those of the Secondary
School teachers of the erstwhile Hyderabad State allotted to the State of
Karnataka. In other words, the State took about fourteen years to set right the
disparities. As to whether any inquiry is necessary for deciding about hostile
discrimination, the petitioners contend that there is no dispute because the
posts in the allotted areas of Hyderabad State and of Karnataka were equated soon
after 1956.
Question
therefore is whether, in Writ petitions filed in this Court in 1991, we are
compelled to interfere? We are of the view that the State Government had before
it the report of the Commission and on that basis it took a decision that the
disparities should stand eliminated prospectively from 1.1.1970 and not
retrospectively from 1.1.1957. The question as to whether the date from which
the scales ought to have been equated should be 1.1.1970 or an anterior or a
later date was a matter which had to be arrived at by taking all factors into
account. It will be difficult for this Court to decide as to from what date the
continuance of the existing scales should be treated as discriminatory or the
continuance would loose its temporary character arising out of section 119 of
the States Reorganisation Act. It may be that the State of Karnataka felt that
the grievance of the non-allotted primary school teachers whose salaries were
lesser than the salaries of non-allotted Secondary School teachers was a matter
of graver concern requiring redressal even as late as 1979 or 1986. Merely because
the grievances of non-allotted primary teachers were remedied even after
considerable lapse of time, we cannot say that grievances of secondary school
teachers - even if it was late - should have also been redressed for the period
1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969. Above all, the financial burden involved was also a
matter of relevant consideration. We are not therefore inclined to hold that
the cut-off dated of 1.1.1970 fixed after the report of Justice Tukol
Commission, in regard to Secondary School teachers, is arbitrary or violative
of Article 14. In any event. principle of laches applies equally to application
under Article 32 of the Constitution o India [Rabindra Nath vs. Union of India (1970 (2) SCR 1697].
For
the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Back
