Payappa vs The State of Karnataka and Others

P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.—In this Writ Petition, petitioner has called in question the order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ''the Tribunal'') in Application No. 5386/2002, disallowing his prayer for a direction to the respondent-State to re-fix his pay scale in accordance with the Government Order No. ED 15 PMW 82, Bangalore, dated 08.07.1986 (Annexure-A3).

This matter had come up before the Court on 23.3.2015. The Court after hearing the parties, had passed an order dismissing the writ petition. However, later on, before the order could be signed, it was noticed that the matter required re-hearing and clarification. Hence, the case was taken up for being spoken to. Learned Counsel for all the parties were heard afresh. Upon hearing, we have found that the order dictated earlier deserves to be recalled and a fresh order needs to be passed. Accordingly, the matter is disposed of by the following order.

Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he was working as a primary school teacher in Athani Taluk, Belgaum District and after re-organisation of the States in the year 1956, he was absorbed as a Government Teacher and he retired from service on 31.12.1997. State Government have issued two Government orders on 10.08.1979 and 08.07.1986 extending certain benefits of pay scale to the teachers excluding teachers from Hyderabad Karnataka area. The petitioner had claimed benefits under the said Government Orders and upon being denied, he approached the Tribunal for redressal. The Tribunal by the impugned order has dismissed his application. Hence this Writ Petition.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has acquired SSLC qualification in the year 1990, he has been denied of the benefits flowing from the Govt. Orders mentioned supra, whereas a teacher by name Shri Kyadi, who is similarly placed as the petitioner has been extended the benefit of those orders.

The issue of pay scale to the teachers after re-organisation of the States was first considered pursuant to a compromise arrived at in a litigation which was fought by teachers upto the Apex Court in SLP No. 908/1975 filed by Shri S. Raghurama Hegde & Others and the respondent-State. Vide Government Order No. ED 7 PMW 78, Bangalore, dated 10.08.1979, certain norms were fixed and the teachers were categorised under four heads and pay scales sanctioned in the following manner.

Subsequently, another Government order dated 8.7.1986 was passed. By the said order, the State Government extended the benefit of Government Order dated 10.8.1979 to all persons recruited in government service upto 31.12.1969.

The petitioner approached the respondent to extend the benefit of the aforementioned Government Orders on the ground that he was absorbed as a government servant on 21.9.1969 and therefore, entitled to the benefit of Government order dated 10.08.1979 which was extended to one Shri Kyadi, who was also similarly placed. The respondent-State has since rejected his claim on 22.9.1998.

With the above background, petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal which considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that the G.O. dated 10.08.1979 and 08.07.1986 clearly indicated that in order to get the benefit of higher pay scale, the teacher should have obtained SSLC and also got trained.

We have heard Shri K.H. Bagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Veena Hegde, learned HCGP for the respondent.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that he was absorbed into Government service on 21.9.1969 and the Government having extended the benefit of the pay scale to a similarly situated teacher namely Shri Kyadi, ought to have considered his case on par with the said teacher and extended the benefit of the Government Order dated 08.07.1986.

Per contra, learned HCGP supports the order of the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

We have perused the records produced by the learned HCGP and the same reveal that Shri Kyadi had acquired SSLC qualification in the year 1980 and admittedly the petitioner has acquired SSLC qualification in the year 1990. Therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be treated in parity with that of Shri Kyadi.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that paragraph 3 of the G.O. dated 8.7.1986 by which the benefits of previous G.O. dated 10.8.1979 have been extended to all persons recruited in Govt. Service upto 31.12.1969 should be read to include the petitioner inasmuch as the said G.O. does not mention any specific date for acquiring SSLC qualification.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was absorbed in Government service on 21.9.1969. He has claimed the benefit of the Government order dated 8.7.1986, wherein the Government extended the benefits of the Government order dated 10.8.1979 to all those persons absorbed in Government service upto 31.12.1969. After considering the representation of the petitioner, the third respondent vide order/endorsement dated 22.9.1998 (Annexure-A7) has held that the petitioner is not entitled for benefits of the Government order dated 10.8.1979 and 8.7.1986. No reasons whatsoever are forthcoming in the said order. The Tribunal while dealing with the matter has noted that the petitioner had passed SSLC examination in the year 1990 but he was trained in the year 1968. Placing reliance on an earlier judgment of the Tribunal, it has held that fulfillment of prescribed conditions is necessary to get the benefit of higher pay scale. The application before the Tribunal was against the order passed by third respondent dated 22.9.1998 (Annexure-A7). The said order of the third respondent is bereft of any reasons. In the representation submitted by the petitioner produced as Annexure-A5, the petitioner had prayed for fixation of pay in par with a teacher namely Shri M.S. Kyadi, who according to the petitioner was extended the benefits of the aforementioned government orders. The third respondent was duty bound to examine the case of the petitioner with reference to the said Government order and pass a reasoned order. In the circumstances, the endorsement/order dated 22.9.1998 is not sustainable in law so also the order passed by the Tribunal.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order/endorsement dated 22.9.1998, passed by third respondent and the order dated 26.8.2014 in O.A. No. 5386/2002 passed by the Tribunal are set aside. The matter is remitted back to third respondent with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. No costs.