The State Of Karnataka Vs. Sri T R Manjunath - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1235758
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnOct-30-2024
Case NumberWP 7628/2024
JudgeKRISHNA S DIXIT AND C M JOSHI
AppellantThe State Of Karnataka
RespondentSri T R Manjunath
Excerpt:
- 1 - nc:2024. khc:43791-db wp no.7628 of 2024 in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru r dated this the30h day of october, 2024 present the hon'ble mr justice krishna s dixit and the hon'ble mr justice c m joshi writ petition no.7628 of2024(s-ksat) between:1. the state of karnataka, represented by its additional chief secretary to govt, public works department, vikasa soudha, bengaluru-560 001.2. the chief engineer, public works department, communication and building(south), annex building, k r circle, bengaluru-560 001.3. the chief engineer, pramc, pwd annexure-2, 4th floor, k r circle, bengaluru-560 001.4. the accountant general(a & e), karnataka circle, park house road, bengaluru-560 001. …petitioners (by smt. saritha kulkarni., hcgp) - 2 - nc:2024. khc:43791-db wp no.7628 of 2024 and: sri. t r manjunath, retired executive engineer, public works department, r/a no.2821, 12thmain, d block, 2nd stage, rajajinagar, bengaluru-560 010. …respondent (by sri. vijaya kumar.,advocate) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to a) call for records and b) issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to quash/set-aside the order dated2206.2023 passed in application no.3896/2022 vide annexure-a passed by the honble karnataka state administrative tribunal, and c) grant such other relief or reliefs as this honble court deems fit grant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. this writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in b group this day, order was made therein as under: coram: hon'ble mr justice krishna s dixit and hon'ble mr justice c m joshi oral order (per: hon'ble mr justice krishna s dixit) the state government & its officials are knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the karnataka state administrative tribunal’s order dated 22.06.2023 whereby, the private respondent’s application no.3896/2022 having - 3 - nc:2024. khc:43791-db wp no.7628 of 2024 been favoured, a direction has been issued to the petitioners to pay him the arrears of salary in the pay scale admissible to the post which he held w.e.f. 2009 on placement by way of independent charge under rule 32 of karnataka civil services rules. the tribunal has also directed payment of interest on the delayed disbursal of arrears of salary and levied a cost of rs.2,500/-.2. learned hgcp appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that the tribunal has grossly erred in granting relief of the kind inasmuch as it was only a retrospective promotion and during the period of retrospectivity when the civil servant had held the post in question on independent charge, he has already received the charge allowance. she also seeks to falter levy of cost & interest for the delayed payment of arrears of salary. learned counsel appearing for the private respondent justifies order of the tribunal making submission in support of the reasoning on which it has been constructed. he banks upon the decision of apex court in state of - 4 - nc:2024. khc:43791-db wp no.7628 of 2024 gujarat vs. hon’ble high court of gujarat1 , a single judge’s order in g.m.poovayya vs. managing director2 3. having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasons which the tribunal has assigned in the impugned order. when a person is placed in a post on independent charge basis under rule 32 of kcsr, it is not a case of promotion, is well established vide m.maridev vs. state of mysore3. however, where such a person is placed merely in independent charge though he was entitled to be promoted to the said post and subsequently he has been accorded retrospective promotion as contradistinguished from notional promotion, he cannot be denied the arrears of salary in the pay scale admissible to the said post. this view accords with doctrine against begar enacted in 1 air1998sc31642 manu/ka/8640/2019 3 1968(1)mylj325- 5 - nc:2024. khc:43791-db wp no.7628 of 2024 article 23 of the constitution of india. h.m.seervai,4 a jurist of yester decades explains ‘begar’, as under: “the word ‘begar’ has not been defined in the constitution, but it has been defined by molseworth as “labour or service exacted by a govt. or a person in power without giving remuneration for it”, and in wilson’s glossary as “forced labour, one pressed to carry burden for individuals or public; under old system when pressed for public service no pay was given.4. learned counsel appearing for the private respondent is more than justified in banking upon the decision in state of gujarat and a single judge’s decision in g.m.poovayya, supra wherein the said doctrine has been treated. in the former, it has been observed that denying minimum wages for the work done by convicts serving the sentence violates article 23. in the later, the employer’s circular denying over-time allowance despite taking over-time work came to be faltered by invoking the very same doctrine. these decisions come to the rescue of respondent employee.5. the contention of learned aga that the employee concerned has been paid allowances admissible to 4 constitutional law of india, 4th edition, volume 2.-. 6 - nc:2024. khc:43791-db wp no.7628 of 2024 independent charge and therefore he cannot be given the salary in the pay scale attached to the post, is bit difficult to countenance. when a retrospective promotion is accorded in accordance with the extant rules, the injustice meted out to the employee concerned is set at naught. it is no fault of his that promotion was denied to him despite entitlement. that being the position, denying the arrears of salary would offend article 300a of the constitution inasmuch as the wages being the price of the sweat of an employee, constitute his property. with- holding of the same amounts to acquisition of his property without compensation which is constitutionally prohibited. this apart, there is no unjust enrichment of the employee inasmuch as the tribunal has directed for the discounting of allowances while working out the arrears of salary.6. all the above being said, learned hcgp is right in telling us that no interest could have been awarded nor cost be levied. to that extent the impugned order of the tribunal needs modification.-. 7 - nc:2024. khc:43791-db wp no.7628 of 2024 in the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, although is dismissed, the direction for payment of interest and levy of cost is diluted. the order of the tribunal shall be implemented and arrears of salary shall be disbursed to the respondent- employee within an outer limit of three months, failing which, the direction for payment of interest and cost diluted above, would revive on its own as phoenix. costs made easy. sd/- (krishna s dixit) judge sd/- (c m joshi) judge cbc list no.:1. sl no.:3.
Judgment:

- 1 - NC:

2024. KHC:43791-DB WP No.7628 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION No.7628 OF2024(S-KSAT) BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING(SOUTH), ANNEX BUILDING, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PRAMC, PWD ANNEXURE-2, 4TH FLOOR, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A & E), KARNATAKA CIRCLE, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., HCGP) - 2 - NC:

2024. KHC:43791-DB WP No.7628 of 2024 AND: SRI. T R MANJUNATH, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, R/A NO.2821, 12THMAIN, D BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS AND B) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER

DATED2206.2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.3896/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AND C) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT GRANT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER

WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) The State Government & its officials are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 22.06.2023 whereby, the private respondent’s Application No.3896/2022 having - 3 - NC:

2024. KHC:43791-DB WP No.7628 of 2024 been favoured, a direction has been issued to the petitioners to pay him the arrears of salary in the Pay Scale admissible to the post which he held w.e.f. 2009 on placement by way of independent charge under Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The Tribunal has also directed payment of interest on the delayed disbursal of arrears of salary and levied a cost of RS.2,500/-.

2. Learned HGCP appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that the Tribunal has grossly erred in granting relief of the kind inasmuch as it was only a retrospective promotion and during the period of retrospectivity when the civil servant had held the post in question on independent charge, he has already received the charge allowance. She also seeks to falter levy of cost & interest for the delayed payment of arrears of salary. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent justifies order of the Tribunal making submission in support of the reasoning on which it has been constructed. He banks upon the decision of Apex Court in STATE OF - 4 - NC:

2024. KHC:43791-DB WP No.7628 of 2024 GUJARAT VS. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT1 , a Single Judge’s order in G.M.POOVAYYA vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR2 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasons which the Tribunal has assigned in the impugned order. When a person is placed in a post on independent charge basis under Rule 32 of KCSR, it is not a case of promotion, is well established vide M.MARIDEV vs. STATE OF MYSORE3. However, where such a person is placed merely in independent charge though he was entitled to be promoted to the said post and subsequently he has been accorded retrospective promotion as contradistinguished from notional promotion, he cannot be denied the arrears of salary in the pay scale admissible to the said post. This view accords with doctrine against begar enacted in 1 AIR1998SC31642 MANU/KA/8640/2019 3 1968(1)MyLJ325- 5 - NC:

2024. KHC:43791-DB WP No.7628 of 2024 Article 23 of the Constitution of India. H.M.Seervai,4 a jurist of yester decades explains ‘begar’, as under: “The word ‘begar’ has not been defined in the Constitution, but it has been defined by Molseworth as “labour or service exacted by a Govt. or a person in power without giving remuneration for it”, and in Wilson’s Glossary as “forced labour, one pressed to carry burden for individuals or public; under old system when pressed for public service no pay was given.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent is more than justified in banking upon the decision in STATE OF GUJARAT and a Single Judge’s decision in G.M.POOVAYYA, supra wherein the said doctrine has been treated. In the former, it has been observed that denying minimum wages for the work done by convicts serving the sentence violates Article 23. In the later, the Employer’s Circular denying over-time allowance despite taking over-time work came to be faltered by invoking the very same doctrine. These decisions come to the rescue of respondent employee.

5. The contention of learned AGA that the employee concerned has been paid allowances admissible to 4 Constitutional Law of India, 4th edition, volume 2.-. 6 - NC:

2024. KHC:43791-DB WP No.7628 of 2024 independent charge and therefore he cannot be given the salary in the pay scale attached to the post, is bit difficult to countenance. When a retrospective promotion is accorded in accordance with the extant rules, the injustice meted out to the employee concerned is set at naught. It is no fault of his that promotion was denied to him despite entitlement. That being the position, denying the arrears of salary would offend Article 300A of the Constitution inasmuch as the wages being the price of the sweat of an employee, constitute his property. With- holding of the same amounts to acquisition of his property without compensation which is constitutionally prohibited. This apart, there is no unjust enrichment of the employee inasmuch as the Tribunal has directed for the discounting of allowances while working out the arrears of salary.

6. All the above being said, learned HCGP is right in telling us that no interest could have been awarded nor cost be levied. To that extent the impugned order of the Tribunal needs modification.-. 7 - NC:

2024. KHC:43791-DB WP No.7628 of 2024 In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, although is dismissed, the direction for payment of interest and levy of cost is diluted. The order of the Tribunal shall be implemented and arrears of salary shall be disbursed to the respondent- employee within an outer limit of three months, failing which, the direction for payment of interest and cost diluted above, would revive on its own as phoenix. Costs made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE cbc List No.:

1. Sl No.:

3.