K. T.
Veerappa & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors [2006] Insc 199 (12 April 2006)
B.
N. Srikrishna & Lokeshwar Singh Panta Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
This
batch of 41 appeals arising out of the common judgment and order dated 8th
March, 2000 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal
Nos. 7000- 7555/1999 were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed
of by this judgment.
The
facts, in brief, are that the appellants are holding non-teaching posts in the University of Mysore. The pay scales of the employees of the
respondent-University, after the Tukol Pay Commission Report, were based on the
pay scales recommended by the said Commission for the Government employees of
the State of Karnataka as adopted by the University after due consideration of
the duties and responsibilities of the various posts in the University. The pay
scales of Government employees were revised on the basis of 'Narayana Pai Pay
Commission Report' with effect from 1st January, 1977. The University of Mysore-respondent
No. 2 herein and other Universities in the State requested the State Government
to extend the pay scales recommended by the Narayana Pai Pay Commission in its
Report to the University employees also. The State Government appointed a
Committee, namely, `Muddappa Committee', to go into the entire matter and to
make recommendations in that respect.
The
said Committee made a Report with certain recommendations as to the revision of
pay scales to the University employees, in the State of Karnataka. It appears that no satisfactory
solution was found in the matter of fixing of pay scales to the University
employees with effect from 1st January, 1977
and as a result thereof, a large number of employees especially the academic
staff of the University of Mysore have suffered heavily. They filed representations
requesting the authorities to look into the grievances of the employees and set
right the anomalies. In spite of the recommendations in respect of the pay
scales of the employees, the University of Mysore has not implemented the said
Report. 23 employees of the respondent-University, similarly placed to the
appellants, filed Writ Petition Nos. 21487-21506/1982 before the High Court
inter alia praying for writ of mandamus commanding the State of Karnataka and
the University of Mysore to declare that the fixation of revised pay scales
with effect from 1.1.1977 in respect of the non- teaching (academic) staff of
the University of Mysore insofar as the petitioners (in those petitions) were
concerned is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and direct the State and the University
to revise and re-fix the pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1977 at par
with the employees of the State Government on the basis of the Pay Commission
Report, 1976 as accepted by the University of Mysore. The State of Karnataka
and the University of Mysore had not filed objections/counter affidavits in
opposition to the said writ petitions which were allowed by the learned Single
Judge by order dated June 21, 1989 directing the University of Mysore to accord
revised pay scales to the petitioners on a rational basis with effect from 1st
January, 1977 with consequential benefits including the difference of salary
and further to consider the question of revision of pay scales with effect from
1st January, 1982 and also subsequently as and when the pay scales of other
posts specified in column No. 5 of the statement extracted in the said order
have been revised and to grant all consequential benefits.
Being
aggrieved, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the University of Mysore filed Writ Appeal Nos. 2220 to 2230 of 1989. The said
appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench on 18th April, 1990 in the following terms:-
-
"The
petitioners may submit their representations against the Report of the Muddappa
Committee before the Vice- Chancellor of the University of Mysore for revising the pay-scales. Within
4 weeks from the date of submission of the representations, the Vice-Chancellor
shall appoint a Committee of three persons to go into the representations of
the petitioners. The Committee so appointed shall hear the petitioners or their
counsel and a representative of the University or its counsel and submit its
Report to the Vice-Chancellor within four weeks from the date of its
appointment. Within six weeks from the date of receipt of the Report of the
Committee, the University shall take a decision in the matter in accordance
with law regarding the pay-scales of the petitioners. In the event the pay
scales are revised, the same shall be given effect to from 1.1.1977 by suitably
amending the Statutes.
Consequent
to revision of pay scales to a higher scale, the petitioners shall also be
entitled to all the consequential benefits including difference of salary from
1.1.1977.
-
The University
is also directed to give effect to the subsequent revisions in the pay-scales
with effect from 1.1.1982 and further revisions, if any, subsequent to
1.1.1982, the University and the benefit of the same shall also be extended to
the petitioners and the fitment in the pay-scales revised with effect from
1.1.1982 and a further revision, if any, shall be made on the basis of the
pay-scale revised with effect from 1.1.1977.
This
direction shall also be complied with within the aforesaid period.
All
the contentions of both sides are left open." In compliance to the
directions of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, the
Vice-Chancellor of respondent- University constituted a Committee of three
members headed by a Chairman - Shri K. Hiriyanna, Deputy Secretary to the
Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Karnataka
Government. Having heard the affected parties, the Committee made certain recommendations
which were accepted by the University and revised pay scales were, accordingly,
sanctioned. However, the revised pay scales were not paid to those petitioners
whose petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge. The said employees
initiated contempt proceedings against the University of Mysore, its Vice-Chancellor and the
Registrar. The Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar both appeared in person before
the High Court on 21st April, 1992 and submitted that the direction of the
Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 2220-2230 of 1989 dated 18th April, 1990 and 21st
September, 1991 had already been complied with and arrears of salary had been
paid to those employees whose writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single
Judge.
No
benefit of pay scales was given to the appellants. The appellants, therefore,
represented to the Vice-Chancellor of the University who again appointed Shri
Hiriyanna to head a Committee. Shri Hiriyanna retired from service before the
Committee could finalise its Report and, thereafter, no Committee was
re-constituted to redress the grievances of the appellants who continued to
suffer the discrimination and were given lower pay scales.
The
appellants being similarly placed employees approached the High Court of
Karnataka by means of Writ Petition Nos.11755/94, C/W 3400-3423/1993, 37901-
37904/1992, 35996/1992, 2436-3443/1993 and 27004/92.
The
learned Single Judge of the Court relying upon the earlier decision of the
Division Bench dated 18th April, 1990, allowed the writ petitions in the
following terms:- (Vide para 6) "6. It is not in dispute that the revised
pay scales of 1977 have been adopted and extended to some of the employees of
the University. Since the issue is already concluded, there is no necessity to
consider the same once again either by reconstituting the Hiriyanna Committee
or any other authority. The University being a statutory body cannot make
discrimination to its officers and employees in the matter of extending same
benefit to others also. Any such discrimination is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution.........." It was further observed that in paragraph 6 of
the Note on Pay Anomalies dated 2.2.1988 put up by the Registrar of the
University, it is stated that "similarly placed employees" were given
the benefit of higher pay scales only because they filed writ petitions. The
same is the position of the petitioners herein also. As a result, the writ
petitions were allowed directing the University of Mysore to extend the revised pay scales of
1977 and the subsequent revision to the petitioners- appellants and pay the
difference of monetary benefits to them within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order.
Being
aggrieved against the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated
October 29, 1998, the State of Karnataka through the Secretary, Department of
Education, filed writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,
praying for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division
Bench, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge
and recorded inter alia the following order:
"In
the present case, it is a matter of record as is even borne out from the
affidavit of the Vice- Chancellor of the University filed on 27.1.2000 that no
Statutes are framed to implement the revised pay scales as per Scheme
formulated by the Division Bench of this Court.
In the
above view of the matter, in our considered opinion it was not permissible on
the part of the learned Single Judge to issue a direction of the nature
impugned herein i.e. directing the University to extend revised pay scales and
make payments accordingly within 2 months from the date of the receipt of the
order. It can unhesitatingly be held that going by the order of the earlier Division
Bench referred to above, even the employees who are before the Division Bench
were not entitled to any benefit of revised pay scales till the Statues were
framed. It is for the Vice-Chancellor of the University to take appropriate
measures to remedy the wrong after giving due notice to the beneficiaries.
Keeping
the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it advisable to direct the
University to take appropriate measures in terms of the Division Bench
directions which has to be of general nature regarding revision of pay scales
and forward the draft Statutes to the Government for its appropriate action in
accordance with law. When such draft Statutes are received by the Government
then it will be for the Government to take appropriate decision by taking into
account the relevant considerations. Accordingly, the order of the learned
Single Judge is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs." Now, the
appellants have filed these appeals by special leave.
In the
counter affidavit filed by the State of Karnataka, it is admitted that the
Government of Karnataka have revised the pay scales of its employees with
effect from 1st January, 1977 and this revision was also extended to the
employees of the Universities, including University of Mysore-respondent No. 2.
Grant of benefit of revised pay scales by the University to its 23 employees,
who had succeeded in the earlier writ petitions, is admitted. It is stated that
the order of the Division Bench impugned in these appeals has only directed the
implementation of the first order of the Division Bench in its true spirit. The
State, for the first time, has taken wholly untenable stand that pursuant to
the order earlier passed by the Division Bench, the action of the University
granting pay scales to the 23 employees was not in accordance with the
provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 as the pay scales of
the employees of the University are to be fixed by framing or amending the
existing Statute of the University.
When
the matter came up for consideration before this Court on August 26, 2002 the learned counsel for the
University submitted that the State Government has not taken a final decision
in the matter with regard to the amendment of the Statute. The matter came up
before this Court for consideration on February 7, 2003, when the learned counsel for the
State as well as the University submitted that the proposed amendments to the
Statute have not been approved by the State Government.
Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appeals
filed by the appellants deserve to be allowed. The learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High
Court has misinterpreted the earlier order of the Division Bench which was
binding upon the respondents-State and the University. According to the learned
counsel, a Co-ordinate Bench is unjustified in commenting upon the earlier
decision of the Bench to say that even the employees, who were before the
Division Bench in the earlier appeals, were not entitled to any benefit of
revised pay scales till the Statute was framed or amendment to the existing
Statute is approved by the State Government/Chancellor. According to the
learned counsel, the action of the State of Karnataka and the University of Mysore, denying the benefits of revised pay scales to the
appellants, is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory.
Per
contra, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel for the State of Karntaka, has
sought to support the judgment of the Division Bench and contended that since
the employees of the Universities established in the State of Karnataka are
bound by their respective Statutes and unless the Statutes are suitably amended
or modified by the University authorities and such amendment is finally
approved by the Chancellor of the University, the appellants and other
employees of the Universities in the State of Karnataka would not be entitled
for the benefits of the revised pay scales at par with the employees of the
State Government on the basis of Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1970.
He
next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the
Executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to
different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are
also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance in
the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Haryana Civil
Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72 and Union of India and Anr.
v. S.B. Vohra and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 150. There is no dispute nor can there be
any to the principle as settled in the case of State of Haryana & Anr. v.
Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (supra) that fixation of
pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and
the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very
limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that the courts should
interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay
parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and
prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and
relevant factors.
In
S.B. Vohra's case (supra), this Court dealing with the fixation of pay scales
of officers of the High Court of Delhi (Assistant Registrars) has held that the
fixation of pay scale is within the exclusive domain of Chief Justice, subject
to approval of President/Governor of the State and the matter should either be
examined by an expert body or in its absence by Chief Justice and the
Central/State Government should attend to the suggestions of the Chief Justice
with reasonable promptitude so as to satisfy the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Further, it is observed that financial implications
vis-`-vis effect of grant of a particular scale of pay may not always be a
sufficient reason and differences should be mutually discussed and tried to be
solved.
In the
present cases, in compliance to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the
High Court, the Vice- Chancellor of the Mysore University constituted a Committee headed by
Shri Hiriyanna. The said Committee, in its Report dated 8.6.1991, has recorded
the obversvations that the details of the pay scales assigned by the 'Muddappa
Committee', 'the Manjunath Committee', 'the Acharya Committee', 'the Gopala
Reddy Committee' as also the pay scales given effect to from 1.1.1977 and the
claims of the appellants, on individual basis, could perhaps have been attended
to by the University itself after the 'Muddappa Committee' made its
recommendations. The Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the Mysore University,
while appearing before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in C.C.C.
Nos. 84 to 103 of 1992 in compliance to the Order dated 16th April, 1992 had
brought to the notice of the Bench that the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge in W.A. Nos.2220 to 2239/1989 dated 18.4.1990 and 29.1.1991 had
already been complied with and arrears of salary had been paid to the employees
of the University, who filed the said Writ Petitions.
Thereafter,
the respondent-University submitted certain proposed amendments to the Statute
and the same were sent to the State Government for approval. The State Government,
for the reasons best known to it, till date has not been able to state any good
reason as to why the amendment of the Statute as proposed by the University in
regard to the fixation of the pay scales of its employees could not have been
approved by the competent authority. The Vice-Chancellor in its affidavit dated
25.1.2000 filed in the Writ Appeal Nos. 7007-55/1999 has categorically stated
that the respondent-University, in its Meeting held on 17.4.1999, decided to
comply with the orders of the Court and also to extend the benefit of the
revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1977 to those employees who are eligible
for such benefits and have not gone to the Court. This decision was taken on
the representation submitted by the appellants.
The
defence of the State Government that as the appellants were not the petitioners
in the writ petition filed by 23 employees of the respondent-University to whom
the benefit of revised pay scales was granted by the Court, the appellants are
estopped from raising their claim of revised pay scales in the year 1992-94, is
wholly unjustified, patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. As
noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, revised pay scales were given to
those 23 employees in the year 1991 when the contempt proceedings were
initiated against the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Mysore. The benefits having been given to 23 employees of the
University in compliance with the decision dated 21.6.1989 recorded by the
learned Single Judge in W. P. Nos.21487-21506/1982, it was expected that
without resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed,
including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits, which would
have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also the movement of files and
papers which only waste public time.
Shri
Sobha Nambisan, Principal Secretary to Government, Education Department (Higher
Education), Government of Karnataka, in his latest affidavit dated 6.3.2006
filed in these proceedings has stated that after 1.1.1977, the Government of
Karnataka has revised the pay scales of employees of State Government in 1982,
1987, 1994 and 1999. From 1.1.1977 to 2006, the dearness allowance, house rent
allowance and other allowances have also been revised. The revision of pay
scales, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and other allowances extended
to the State Government employees were also extended to the University
employees from time to time. Moreover, a large number of Mysore University employees were promoted in terms of the time-bound
promotion schemes of 10 years, 15 years and 20 years in terms of the Government
Orders issued from time to time. The additional financial implications of Rs.60
lakhs will have to be borne by the State Government. He has categorically
stated that the revision of pay scales extended to the employees of State
Government time and again will also be extended to all the University
employees.
In our
view, the impugned judgment of the High Court in W. A. Nos. 7007-55/1999 dated
8.3.2000 is not legally sustainable. It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside.
Consequently,
the appeals are allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated
29.10.1998 in Writ Petition Nos.11755/94 CW 3400-3423/93, 37901-37904/92,
35996/92, 3426-3443/93 and 27004/92 is restored and maintained. The
respondents-State of Karnataka and University of Mysore, both are directed to extend the
pay scales of 1977 and subsequent revisions to the appellants and pay the
difference of monetary benefits to them within four months from the date of
this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to
bear their own costs.
Back
