[2023] 12 S.C.R. 235 : 2023 INSC 828
B.C. NAGARAJ & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.5529¬5530 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2023.
[ABHAY S. OKA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
Issue for consideration: Whether the retired physical instructors
of the Government College are entitled to the benefit of revised
pay scale when the same benefit was granted to the similarly
placed employees.
Service law – Revised pay scale – Benefit of – Entitlement, to
retired physical instructors of the Government College – When
the same benefit of University Grant Commission pay scale
under the Government order dated 15.11.1999 was granted to
the similarly placed employees:
Held: Retired physical instructors should not be denied the
same relief, when the same benefit was granted to the similarly
placed employees – Case of similarly placed retiree, decided by
the Single Judge of the High Court was similar to the present
appellants wherein the Single Judge held that he was entitled to
the benefit of the revised UGC pay scale from 1.01.1996 based
on the order dated 15.11.1999 – Said order attained finality upto
this Court – It appears that the Order dated 19.10.2006 issued
by UGC and the Order dated 4.07.2008 issued by the State
Government that the Government employees were not entitled
to a revised pay scale with retrospective effect were not pointed
out to the courts below as also this Court who decided the case
of the similarly placed retiree – State Government never applied
for the review and allowed the said order to become final – In the
subsequent decision, the Division Bench of the same High Court
noted the directions issued by the UGC on 19.10.2006 and the
Order dated 4.07.2008 – However, even thereafter, despite the
Government Order dated 4.07.2008, in 2014, to the employees
who were similarly placed as the appellants, the benefits of the
revised UGC pay scale in terms of the Government order dated
15.11.1999 were granted – Now, the State Government cannot rely
upon the Government Order dated 4.07.2008 – Thus, issuance
* Author
236 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
of direction to the State Government to extend the benefits under
the Government Order dated 15.11.1999 to the retired physical
instructors within the stipulated period. [Paras 6-12]
State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Puttaswamy and Ors. Writ
Appeal no.234 of 2007 dated 29th April 2011; Irayya
& Ors. v. The Secretary & Ors. Writ Petition no. 62679
of 2012 30th July 2012 – referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5529-5530 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2017 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP Nos.1895 and 1896 of 2014.
Charudatta Vijayrao Mahindrakar, Mrs. Darshan Mahindrakar, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Prateek K. Chadha, AAG, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta,
Md. Apzal Ansari, Sreekar Aechuri, Ms. Muskan Singla, Ms. Pragya
Ganjoo, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellants were employed initially as Physical Instructors in
Government Grade Colleges in Karnataka. The first appellant reached
the selection grade pay scale of the University Grants Commission
(UGC) on 1st January 1986. The second appellant was granted
senior scale of pay on 1st January 1986 and selection grade of
pay from 13th July 1990. The first appellant was superannuated on
31st January 1998, and the second appellant was superannuated
on 31st May 2004. Both, at the time of retirement, were selection
grade Physical Education Directors in the State Government colleges.
2. On 15th November 1999, the State Government issued an order
revising the pay scale of Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education
Directors in the Government colleges. Under the said Government
order, the benefit of the University Grants Commission (UGC) pay
scales as revised from 1st January 1996 was granted to these three
categories of employees with retrospective effect from 1st January
1996. On the same day, by a separate order, the benefit of the
revised pay scale was granted to Teachers, Librarians and Directors
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 237
B.C. NAGARAJ & ANR. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
of Education in the Government-aided colleges. The order dated 15th
November 1999 was partially modified on 29th July 2000. A circular
was issued by the Government of Karnataka on 23rd October 2001
stating that physical education and library personnel drawing UGC
pay scales of 1996 shall not be granted other government benefits
under the Government Order dated 15th November 1999.
3. The appellants were denied the benefit of the Government Order dated
15th November 1999. Therefore, the appellants filed an application
before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which was rejected.
They filed a Writ Petition before the High Court to challenge the
order of the Tribunal. Writ Petition was dismissed by the impugned
judgment. The impugned judgment relies upon a Government Order
dated 4th July 2008, which records that the revised UGC pay scale
shall be extended from 27th July 1998 notionally and all financial
benefits shall be extended prospectively from 4th July 2008, and no
arrears shall be paid.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that
one Shri N. Ramesh, who retired as a Director of Physical Education
(selection grade), was granted the benefit of the Government Order
dated 15th November 1999. He superannuated on 28th February
2006. Later on, the benefits granted to the said employee were sought
to be recovered from him, and therefore, he filed a Writ Petition before
the High Court. The High Court held that the benefit of the revised
UGC pay scale was rightly extended earlier to the said employee,
and therefore, the High Court, by judgment and order dated 13th
February 2009, directed that all benefits be extended to him. He
pointed out that the Division Bench confirmed the said order in a
Writ Appeal filed by the respondents, and a Special Leave Petition
filed against the orders has been dismissed. Placing reliance on the
documents annexed to the application for permission to file additional
documents (IA No.61474 of 2022), he submitted that even in 2014,
full benefits under the Government Order dated 15th November 1999
were extended to similarly placed employees.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of
Karnataka submitted that the orders passed in the Writ Petition filed
by Shri N. Ramesh are per incuriam since the Government Order
dated 4th July 2008 which incorporated the clarification issued on
238 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
19th October 2006 by UGC was not brought to the notice of the
Courts. He pointed out that by a judgment and order dated 29th April
2011 passed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Writ
Appeal no.234 of 2007 (State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Puttaswamy and
Ors.), the benefit of the Government Order dated 15th November
1999 was denied to the similarly placed employee on the basis of the
order dated 19th October 2006 of UGC. He submitted that the order
dated 4th July 2008 issued by the State Government is in terms of
the order of UGC dated 19th October 2006, which lays down that
the benefit of revised pay scales with effect from 1st January 1996
shall be extended from 27th July 1998 notionally and all financial
benefits shall be extended prospectively from 4th July 2008 and that
the employees will not be entitled to arrears. The learned Additional
Advocate General, therefore, submitted that the view taken by the
High Court is fully justified.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
6. It is not in dispute that the case of Shri N. Ramesh in Writ Petition
No. 5855 of 2008, decided by the learned Single Judge of Karnataka
High Court on 13th February 2009, was similar to the present
appellants. The learned Single Judge held that the said Shri N.
Ramesh was entitled to the benefit of the revised UGC pay scale
from 1st January 1996 based on the order dated 15th November
1999. Shri N. Ramesh had superannuated on 28th February 2006
as Physical Education Director from a Government aided college.
The judgment of the Karnataka High Court attained finality as a
Writ Appeal preferred against the judgment and the Special Leave
Petition have been dismissed.
7. It appears that the Order dated 19th October 2006 issued by UGC
and the Order dated 4th July 2008 issued by the State Government
were not pointed out to the learned Single Judge who decided Writ
Petition of Shri N. Ramesh on 13th February 2009. Even in the
appeal before the Division Bench and in the Special Leave Petition
before this Court, both the orders were not brought to the notice of
the Court. The State Government never applied for the review. It
is true that in the subsequent decision of the Division Bench of the
same High Court dated 29th April 2011 in Writ Appeal no. 234 of
2007, the High Court noted the directions issued by the UGC on 19th
October 2006 and the Government Order dated 4th July 2008 based
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 239
B.C. NAGARAJ & ANR. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
on the directions of UGC and held that the Government employees
were not entitled to a revised pay scale with retrospective effect.
8. It must be noted here that the State Government implemented the
order in the case of Shri N. Ramesh. In another order passed by a
learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court on 30th July 2012, in
Writ Petition no. 62679 of 2012 and other connected matters (Irayya
& Ors. v. The Secretary & Ors.), a direction was issued in favour of
the similarly placed employees who were entitled to revised UGC pay
scales with effect from 1st January 1996 along with all consequential
benefits. The order was confirmed by a Division Bench by an order
dated 27th August 2013.
9. Along with the same application, the appellants have produced a
copy of the order dated 7th January 2014 in the case of one Shri K.C.
Patil and Shri S.H. Hallur, who were retired librarians. By the said
order, the two librarians, who were similarly placed as the appellants,
were granted the benefit of the revised pay scale from 1st January
1996 along with consequential benefits in terms of the order dated
15th November 1999. Therefore, not only in the case of Shri N.
Ramesh but even thereafter in 2014, to the employees who were
similarly placed as the appellants, the benefits of the revised UGC
pay scale in terms of the Government order dated 15th November
1999 were granted.
10. The State Government ought to have applied for review of the order of
this Court in the case of Shri N. Ramesh. However, the Government
had allowed the said order to become final. Notwithstanding the
Government Order of 4th July 2008, as can be seen from the
additional documents, the benefit was granted to the employees who
were similarly placed with the appellants even on 7th January 2014.
It was a conscious decision of the State Government to accept the
decision of the High Court in the case of Shri N. Ramesh. Now, the
State Government cannot rely upon the Government Order dated
4th July 2008, which was not pointed out to the Courts which dealt
with the case of Shri N. Ramesh as the State Government accepted
the judgment in the case of Shri N. Ramesh and granted benefits
to him of the Government Order dated 15th November 1999. There
is no reason why the appellants should be denied the same relief,
especially when even as of 7th January 2014, the same benefit was
granted to the similarly placed employees.
240 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 9th October 2017 is hereby
quashed and set aside. We direct the State Government to extend
the benefits under the Government Order dated 15th November
1999 to the appellants within a period of three months from today.
The appeals are, accordingly, allowed on the above terms with no
order as to costs.
12. We make it clear that this judgment will apply to all cases, pending
before either the Administrative Tribunal or High Court, of similarly
situated employees in which a similar relief is claimed. However, this
judgment shall not be used to file new cases by retired employees
who have been denied the benefit and who have not challenged
the action till date. No case, which has been concluded, shall be
reopened on the basis of this judgment.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case : Appeals allowed.
