A retired judicial officer appointed contractually to a Human Rights Commission is entitled to revised pay scales under judicial service guidelines, notwithstanding the lack of a sanctioned post in cadre rules, provided they fall within the scope of government directives following judicial commission recommendations.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2019 BEARING NO.LAW 02 HRC 2012 (BHA-1) PASSED BY THE R1 REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR RECONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR RECONSIDER THE PAY SCALE OF THE PETITIONER, THEREBY REFUSING TO PAY THE SALARY AS PER THE REVISED PAY SCALE (ANNEXURE-A) AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quashing the order dated 11.03.2019, bearing No. Law 02 HRC 2012 (Bha-1), passed by the first respondent rejecting the representation made by the petitioner for reconsider the pay scale of the petitioner, thereby refusing to pay the salary as per the revised pay scale. (Annexure-A) as prayed for.

(ii) Direct the respondents to consider the revised pay scale of the petitioner as per the Government of Karnataka order G.O. No. LAW 147 LAC 2009, Bangalore dated 24.06.2010, the pay scale of the Judicial Officers was revised, accordingly the said minimum basic pay scale of the District and Sessions Judge was fixed to Rs.51,550/- per month with effect from 01.01.2006 vide Annexure-D and accordingly direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.8,57,903 to the petitioner.

(iii) Pass such other order or orders as may be just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate the petitioner, retired District and Sessions Judge, Karnataka State Judicial Service in the month of June, 2009. By Office Order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, the petitioner was appointed as the Presenting Officer to the Chairperson of the Commission of the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (KSHRC) initially for a period of six months and thereafter, extended upto February 2013 as per the terms and conditions enumerated in the aforesaid office order. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that despite the proceedings of the State Government dated 24.06.2010 granting retired judicial officers revised pay scales with effect from 01.01.2006, respondent No.1 has declined to consider the claim of the petitioner for re-fixation of his pay of Rs.51,550/- per month, which is the minimum basic pay scale in the cadre of District Judge on the ground that the post of the Presenting Officer is not in the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission Cadre & Recruitment Rules, 2013 and also that since the petitioner was not appointed as against any sanctioned post, the petitioner would not be entitled to re-fixation of his pay. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure - A dated 11.03.2019, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Per contra, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to the dismissed.

5. Before averting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract notification dated 07.02.2013 as hereunder:

“GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

No: LAW 17 HRC 2010 Karnataka Government Secretariat,

Vidhana Soudha,

Bangalore, dated: 7th Feb. 2013.

NOTIFICATION

In exercise