IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWADC :
DATED THIS THE 17*" DAY or-' JLi_l.;"r",'--.'.7.T(}£..)'__2__'s"V~l' "
BEFORE
THE HO¥\i'BLE MR. JLiST'ICE;:A.Big\{Ei\:.UG§jv§?i'L£.vv.§§3Wi3A
Bsmfl
. Smt; Cgujéfiai, " 1.; »
W,/ax Siéciaiifig C 8_é'diga'rivn'aV&;r;'
..Ag_e_<"1'~.a bdiui: ,4 :i--».yea'rs, «
Techt:é<;ai¢£§sVsista«nt, _ --
Departnuanx :3!' S3t_at§--stics,
"r<,a rnata ka" !~Jjniv'er_§ity",
Df:Ca_;'v¢.ar»'3, 7 "
. Sri Kri'si*m.a,. Kumar,
C 1-,":"5_/¢*..Mohan Gosai,
Agiadabout 36 years,
* .,_TT$Chfi-i_CE';'i Assistant (Draftsman)
Btijiidinvg Department,
.i<a_ri'g--ataka University,
Dharwar-3.
Petitioners
C' ":(By Sri Maflikarjun C Basareddy, Adv.,)
AND
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary to the Department of Education,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore-1.
2. The Secretary, _
Planning and Institutional_and__Financia'i-..li§eoartr:1ent,"» "
Vidhana Soudlza, " .. -I' . 7
Bangalore-560 003..
3. Karnataka University.__D¥jar»~iad.: ._
ayits Registrar. "
lvvlkespondents
(ay sri R.i(.¥-iatti, Hes? for R1;s...i'*a
Sri T.?.Raje--nVdra I(urr*:a.r' Sn ngtay !To!.'R3;
R2 serveri)';..VL'r1'~ .; 'V '
.lir:rsa.pers:;aa5 irs1...file§d'wonder Articies 226 and 22?
thextiorastitaiztioin"uprayrng to quash Annexure-C éated
5.4.2004'9assed'-~..._§§y."'"R3 and also Annexure-D sated
5.4.2f1'34"éssi;--ed~~.l§y' ~33.
1' 1' .Cagirit..'(l2.ad.e the followieg:
'flzis oetitiion coming on for hearing this day, the
ORDER
“fine petitioners were appointed as Technical
1′ Assistant and Technical Assrstant Draftsman respectively in
lithe 3” respondent University on 26.12.1988 and
30.7.1997 respectively. Their pay scale was fixed as
per the UGC pay scaies. One Sri I.<l.Kadaiirnatti working
1,
£2:
as 3unior Technicai Assistant in the
University, had fiied w.p.12.4s9/19s9_taroéhittndifeatipgtttt
respondents to refix his salarylon v¥éith4.Athe”ernpio§,{ees
of the State Government Vaeaper tize”revision-
This Court by an order da’ted_V’_22u.?.:t99;6:djireoted the 2″”
respondent i.e., andflxlnstitutionai
and FinanciaiAtt)epartm_en.t, accordance with
iaw and wi§;’hin:~.ea’ttpei–‘.iod1_ the proposai sent
by the Iiniversity, Dharwad in
revizsitno sthtitiiil-i.Kadalimatti, pursuant to
the letter Another person Sri R.G.Morab,
Technicai'”Engineer.”-oththe 3″‘ respondent University had
t riiédi.w.a.13.456/1’98o9, which it is stated was disposed of
directing the 3″‘ respondent University to
representation of the said empioyee for
revision of pay scale on par with the State Government
.,g;rn.ploYees. It is stated that in pursuance of the orders
passed in the said writ petitions, the State Government
considered the request of the 3″‘ respondent University , in
the matter of fixation of pay scaii on par with the
employees of the State Government in thejfdiifcation
Department and a communication 4_
issued, granting the sanction,for_4rev’i’siori7of stale’;
corresponding to the employees’ oitjthe
in the Education Departrr§e_ht…}vith’wcorrespondingw rjevisionl
of pay scales from A__1.977 to…uif982-~..and.’ :”t99.4..,.:§ Petitioners
claim that they are’–:slmiiarE§yiv si’tt{ateé_Viike that of the
aforesaid LG;’Kadalirnetti’;avndjvsri .VR.r;§.V’»i$d’orab and another
empioyee..$rnt;:ifl:em’a;_:=arorkin_g iasifetfhnical Assistant in the
3rd who had also filed
“writ petition was disposed of by an
order datedi_:22.2*.2f:!3§erld iater modified, in terms of the
A e’:Jder:_–.rdateé 7′.Vl1Vi”.’2’OO5. Petitioners claim that they are
l tésszupem iike that of the aforesaid three writ
“petitioners. and they are entitled to be treated on similar
terrr”asV__A7~ene in not doing so and by issuing the
‘.en:d§orsements at Annexures C and D, the 3” respondent
__?University has caused discrirnination and has committed a
material error and irregularity. Seeking quashing of
Annexures-C and D, this writ petition Ts been filed.
2. The 3″‘ respondent University has filed its
statement of objections stating that, since the..{§’oSre’ri’}n1«ent
auditors had objected to the decision ofhthle:Uni_eer’sit§§”‘_,’on’
the ground that Government :~C}rder«da«teot lives» it
issued in favour of Mr.Morab and’VMr;–!§.adaEihjattvi and:.’noVt’to
others, it has withdrawn t’t:e:’V”heneht**aVndfiiotlthlerw ordered
for recovery of the”~excess'”‘a’rno1.tht._Apaidandv hence the
impugned endorsements.’ arfei’hot_.c_o’etjr.ar_y to law.
‘C._””‘BaVsareddy, learned counsel
appearihg submitted that the petitioners
are sinaiiarly s:iVtVoate’d’~.«’like that of the petitioners in WA’.
nos..1ll:4os/19s«e, eeee 11459/1939, and 16?08/2004 and are
‘ .VVV’entEt¥.edi~-similar relief. The oniy contention of the
.’.U’i*:’§ve.i’sity_ that, the Government Order dated 5.2.1997
was only in favour of Mr.Morab and Mr.Kadalimatti
‘land not to others in view of which, it has issued Annexures
(Stand D.
4. I do not fine any merit in the stand taken by the
3″‘ respondent University. The mattei is covered by the
decision of this Court passed in the case of HEMA VS.
STATE AND OTHERS in W.P.16708/2004, dispes_’eci’=.;of on
22.2.2005 and modified on 7.11.2oos§ j’;’si’ooeee’i’tne
petitioners are similarly situated like the2ti%ofij2h’e* oetiti.oo’e:””ie
in W.P.16708/2004, the petitioniere are’V”‘e:nvti;tie§~~.to1then’
relief in terms of the”evrder dates a “and the
modified order dat:e£.iVVi.”‘v–.?–;…11.2’G€iS..,. Vfpassed in
w.e.1s7os/zoos. “”Foiioiir_i_n§’}thesaiiderdeis and for the
reasons stated theirein; and E) are irabie to be
q trashed; 5;” N .271 ‘
t.t:e_thevt.se2io the matter, the writ petition is
_e’iivoi_hiedu.’ the orders dated 22.2.2005 and
_&”ir*,7′?.rf1ji.22’oof$ passed in W.P.16708/2.004. The 3″‘ respondent
directed te consider the request of the
A’*-4.._petitio;?i.1ers in accordance with iaw and not to effect any
.2 rectoireries on the payments made in accordance with the
V’ revised pay scaies. 3″‘ respondent is aise directed to take
necessary steps to secure the sanction from the
resgaondents No.1 and 2 for granting benefit
scales to the petitioners.