##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17040-DB WP No. 10897 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION No. 10897 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI T. A. RAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

S/O LATE SRI. T.K.A. IYENGAR, R/AT No.477, 4^TH MAIN,

III CROSS, B BLOCK, KANAKADASANAGAR

MYSORE- 570 022.

2. SRI. NANJUNDASWAMY C., AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

S/O LATE SRI CHENNAVEERAPPA, Digitally signed by R/AT No.466, 5^TH CROSS, VINUTHA B S

M BLOCK, II STAGE, Location:

KUVEMPUNAGAR, High Court of Karnataka MYSORE 570 004.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. SUBHASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATKAA

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17040-DB WP No. 10897 of 2021

HC-KAR

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY,

MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,

BANGALORE 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDERS BEARING No.MWD 226 DATED 22.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A15 IS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 26.08.2019 PASED IN APPLICATIONS No. 6507/2019 AND 6508/2019 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU VIDE

ANNEXURE-C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri S. Subhash, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Sri R. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government

Advocate for the respondents.

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17040-DB WP No. 10897 of 2021

HC-KAR

2. The unsuccessful applicants in Application Nos.6507– 6508/2016 are before this Court, impugning the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative

Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are retired Government servants who were appointed, after their retirement, to the Karnataka WAQF Tribunal, Mysuru, on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 3,500/- respectively. The said salary was subsequently increased to Rs.7,250/- and Rs. 4,800/- respectively on the

recommendation of respondent No. 1.

3.1 It is further stated that the revision of consolidated salary payable to employees re-appointed on a contract basis in Special Courts and Fast Track Courts was approved by the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka, pursuant to which the salaries of the petitioners were revised. When a further revision was permitted, representations were submitted seeking such revision, which were also recommended by the Presiding Officer, Karnataka WAQF Tribunal, Mysuru. However, the said recommendation came to be rejected by

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17040-DB WP No. 10897 of 2021

HC-KAR

communication dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure-A15), citing the Government policy against the appointment of retired

employees.

3.2 The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the applications, also placing reliance on the said Government

policy.

4. Sri S. Subhash, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the State Government, by communication dated 19.08.2009, permitted the WAQF Tribunal to appoint the requisite staff. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were appointed by the Presiding Officer of the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal by orders dated 25.08.2009 and 01.03.2010 (Annexures-A4 and

A5).

4.1 It is further submitted that the consolidated remuneration was revised on 26.03.2010 (Annexure-A6). The learned counsel submits that such revision of consolidated remuneration was also approved by the Government, as evidenced by Annexure- A7, and was made effective by Government Order dated

18.08.2012.

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17040-DB WP No. 10897 of 2021

HC-KAR

4.2 It is contended that when the appoi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document