Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19779

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Hanumantha Gouda F. Patil – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.2421 OF 2022 (S-RES)|WRIT PETITION NO.9333 OF 2023 (S-RES)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narayana Bhat M., Jagadeeshgoud Patil
For the Respondents: Nayana Tara B.G.

Employees are entitled to the same pay scale benefits as their similarly situated counterparts once such entitlement is established through judicial precedent. Denying these benefits to others in the same category is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates the constitutional guarantee of equality in matters of public employment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21 - Service Law - Pay fixation - Rationalization of pay scales - Employees previously working as daily wage earners and subsequently transferred to a corporate body claimed parity in pay scale based on precedents ensuring similar work is remunerated equally irrespective of initial date of appointment - Courts have consistently held that withholding such benefits when similarly situated employees have been granted the same is arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights. (Paras 3, 11)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Res judicata and parity in employment - When issues of pay scale parity have been previously settled by the court in earlier litigation involving identical categories of employees, the employer is legally bound to extend such benefits to all similarly situated employees to avoid anomalous situations and unequal treatment. (Paras 5, 6, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were initially appointed as daily wage workers and later transferred to a state-run entity, sought the quashing of an administrative order that denied them a specific pay scale. The petitioners contended that through multiple rounds of litigation spread over several years, this court had established their entitlement to the higher pay scale, yet the respondent-employer repeatedly denied these benefits, necessitating fresh petitions.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the issue of pay scale entitlement for these categories of employees had been settled by multiple coordinate benches and confirmed by the appellate court and the apex judicial body. The respondent's refusal to extend these benefits while similar employees received them constituted discriminatory treatment.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the rationalized pay scale in parity with similarly situated colleagues who have already been granted such benefits, and whether the respondent is justified in denying these benefits based on the date of initial appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the legality of a pay scale has been affirmed in judicial proceedings involving identical categories of employees, the employer cannot arbitrarily apply different criteria to exclude others. Denying such benefits to similarly situated personnel creates an unjustified anomaly and violates the principle of equality before the law.

Result: Petitions allowed; the impugned orders are quashed, and respondents are directed to grant the pay scale and arrears to the petitioners within six weeks.

Table of Content
1. overview of petitioners' prayers for pay scale re-fixation and arrears. (Para 1 , 2)
2. established judicial precedents granting pay parity to similarly situated employees. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. quashing of arbitrary rejection orders and court-directed implementation of pay benefits. (Para 11 , 12)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08/03/2019 BEARING NO.¸ÀASÉå..PÀdªÀÄ/º ÉZï.Dgï.r:6/°ÃUÀ¯ï/2741/2018-19 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.,

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

1. In W.P.No.2421/2022, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or an order or direction quashing order bearing No. K.J.M./HRD-6/LEGAL/2741/2018-19 dated 08/03/2019 produced at Annexure-N as the same is Illegal, contrary to law as laid by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.16391/1992 dated 08/07/1998 produced at Annexure-B and also violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

b) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or an order or direction directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 31/01/2019 produced at Annexure-P and the one dated 18/01/2022 produced at Annexure-P-1 and grant them the benefit of pay scale of Rs.120-240 in the place of Rs.90-200 from the date of their initial appointment and grant them all consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice.

c) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or an order or direction directing the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.120-240 from the date of their appointment in the Cadre of Jr. Work Inspector and further grant them arrears of salary and all other consequential benefits consequent to quashing of Annexure-N to meet the ends of justice.

d) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or an order or direction directing the respondent to revise the pay fixation of all the petitioners on fixation in the scale of Rs.120-240 from the date of joining service and revise the same on the basis of the revision of pay scales notified from time to time and also revise the monthly pension accordingly to meet the ends of justice.

e) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or an order or direction directing the respondent to compute the arrears of salary upon re-fixation so also the arrears of pension and difference in other terminal benefits computed on re-fixation of the salary to meet the ends of justice.

f) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or an order or direction directing the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 14 percent per annum on arrears computed as stated above from the date on which same are due till payments are made, to meet the ends of justice.

g) Grant the petitioners cost of this proceeding and pass such other Order/s as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to meet the ends of justice.”

2. In W.P.No.9333/2023, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“a) Quash the order dated 08/03/2019 bearing No.¸ÀASÉå.PÀdªÀÄ/ºÉZï.Dgï.r:6/°ÃUÀ¯ï/2741/2018-19 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.03.2019 passed by the 1st respondent at Annexure-L.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners as per judgment dated 08.07.1998 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.16391/1992 at Annexure-G and order 24.01.2000 in W.A.No.970/1999 and 1378/1999 passed by this Hon'ble Court at Annexure-H and also order dt.3/6/2006 in W.P.No.8659/2001(S) and Writ Appeal No.1590/2006, 10149:10153/2011, 27.07.2011-Annexure-N, P & Q and grant them the benefits which has been granted to other employees as per the order of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19779

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.R.Krishna Kumar, JHanumantha Gouda F. Patil – AppellantVersusKarnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO.2421 OF 2022 (S-RES)|WRIT PETITION NO.9333 OF 2023 (S-RES)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Hanumantha Gouda F. Patil – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.2421 OF 2022 (S-RES)|WRIT PETITION NO.9333 OF 2023 (S-RES)