Karnataka High Court
Rohini G Munavalli vs The Secretary To Govt on 23 November, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP Nos.106020 - 106029/2014 (S-RES)
Between
1. Smt.Rohini G Munavalli
Aged about 50 years
Occ: SDA, r/o. MIG 12
#303,Akshay Park
Hubballi, District Dharwad.
2. Smt.K Mariyamma
Aged about 50 years
Occ: SDA, r/o HDMC quarets
Old, Hubballi Hospital Campus
Dharwad.
3. Sri Channappa N Birolli
Aged about 52 years
Occ: SDA, r/o Janglipeth
Hubballi, Distrct: Dharwad.
4. Sri Anjanappa O. Kadargunti
Aged about 44 years
Occ: Bill Collector
r/o #10, Indira Nagar
P B Road, R/o Hubballi.
5. Sri Shariff Yellappa Shiraguppi
Aged about 43 years
Occ: Bill Collector, r/o #52/2
Karki Basaweshar Nagar
Hubballi, Dharwad.
2
6. Sri Devanand Yellappa Amarapur
Aged about 51 years, Occ: SDA
r/o #56, St.Michal College Road
Teacher Colony, Bengeri Hubballi
Distrct : Dharwad.
7. Sri V K Kumbar, Age about 43 years
Occ: SDA, r/o Near Veerabhadra
Temple, Sutagatti.
8. Smt.Kalavathi P Gurugunti
Aged about 38 years
Occ: SDA, r/o #568
Indira nagar, P B Road
Hubballi, District : Dharwad.
9. Smt.Kavitha @ Bharathi
Suresh Mohithe, aged about
35 years, Occ: SDA
r/o Near Ganesh Temple
Charantimath Garden
District : Dharwad.
10. Sri Gurumath Kareppa Madar
Aged about 35 years
Occ: SDA, r/o Sutagatti
Hubballi, District : Dharwad. ...Petitioners
(By Sri R H Angadi & Smt.Gayatri S R, Advocates)
And
1. The Secretary to Government
Urban Development, M S Building
Veedhana Veedhi, Bengaluru.
2. The Director, Municipal
Administration, Viveshwaraiah
Tower, Veedhana Veedhi
Bengaluru.
3
3. The Chief Accounts Officer
Hubli - Dharwad Municipal
Corporation, Hubli.
4. The Chief Auditor
Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation
Hubli.
5. The Assistant Commissioner (Admn)
Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation
Hubli.
6. The Commissioner
Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation
Hubli.
7. Additional Revenue Officer, Hubli
Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation
Hubli - Dharwad. ..Respondents
(By Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, AGA for R1 & R2,
Shri G I GAchchinmath, Advocate for R3, R5 and R6)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order
No.HDMC/40/01/12-13 passed by respondent No.6 dated
12.07.2012 vide Annexures-E to E9 and etc.,.
This writ petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2.
4
2. Petitioners were appointed as Group-B and Group-C employees respectively by the respondents-Corporation. The pay scale of the petitioners was fixed in terms of the provisions contained in Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The pay scale that was extended to the employees of the corporation was higher than the pay scale of the similarly situated employees appointed by the Government. So as to set right the anomaly, the respondents - Corporation passed an order refixing the salary of the petitioners as well as other similarly situated persons on par with the pay scale extended to the government employees. Further, by the impugned order, the amount alleged to have been paid in excess was sought to be recovered from the petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in identical matters in WP No.8282/2008 and connected matters (DD 23.2.2011) and WP No.72257/2012 (DD 27.6.2013) has held that the refixation of the pay scale of the petitioners therein is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the alleged excess amount cannot be 5 recovered from the petitioners, since the excess amount has not been paid at the instance of the petitioners. Hence, he submits that the writ petitions may be allowed by quashing the impugned order.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the decision rendered by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the refixation of the pay scale to the petitioners and also recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners is in accordance with law and the same does not warrant any interference.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate reiterates the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Corporation and seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the pay scale of the petitioners was extended in terms of the provisions contained in 6 Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and the pay scale extended to the petitioners was higher than the pay scale of the similarly situated employees of the government. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.8282/2008 and connected matters has held that the refixation of the similarly situated persons is not sustainable in law. The alleged excess amount paid by the Corporation was not due to the fault of the petitioners. Hence, the recovery of alleged amount is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the above factual position of law.
8. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is already examined by this Court and it was held that the refixation of the pay scale of the employees of the Corporation and the recovery of the excess amount is not sustainable in law, these writ petitions require to be disposed of in the light of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.8282/2008 and connected matters (DD 23.2.2011) and WP No.72257/2012 (DD 27.6.2013). Even otherwise the order dated 11.7.2012 passed by respondent - Corporation is 7 withdrawn by order dated 16.8.2014 in the light of the order passed in WP No.8282/2008. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petitions stand allowed;
ii) The impugned orders dated 11.7.2012 passed by respondent No.6 vide Annexures-D and D1 and consequent orders passed by respondent No.7 vide Annexures-E to E9 are hereby quashed;
iii) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents No.3 to 6 to restore the pay scale and emoluments of the petitioners as same as they were obtaining as it stood prior to 11.7.2012 and release the service benefits to the petitioners. The said exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm