2006 Supreme(SC) 345

2006(3) Supreme 668
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
B.N. Srikrishna and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
K.T. Veerappa & Ors.—Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1216-1256 of 2003
Decided on 12-4-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V.A. Mohta, Sr. Advocate, B.K. Choudhary, K. Lingraja, Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, Vikas Rojipura, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : G.V. Chandra Shekhar, P.P. Singh, Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocates.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976—Constitution of India—Article 226—Pay scales of employees of the University of Mysore—Fixation of—Pay scales of employees of respondent University were based on pay scales recommended for the Government employees of State of Karnataka as adopted by the University—Writ petition filed by 23 employees of respondent University for direction to the State and the University to revise and re-fix pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1977 at par with employees of the State Government on basis of the Pay Commission Report, 1976 as accepted by the University—Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions directing the University to accord revised pay scales to petitioners with all consequential benefits—Employees initiated contempt proceedings as revised pay scales were not paid to those petitioners—Arrears of salary were then paid to those employees—Appellants being similarly placed employees filed writ petitions—Whether appellants claim could be allowed—(Yes).

       Held : In the present cases, in compliance to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the Vice-Chancellor of the Mysore University constituted a Committee headed by Shri Hiriyanna. The said Committee, in its Report dated 8.6.1991, has recorded the observations that the details of the pay scales assigned by the ‘Muddappa Committee’, ‘the Manjunath Committee’, ‘the Acharya Committee’, ‘the Gopala Reddy Committee’ as also the pay scales given effect to from 1.1.1977 and the claims of the appellants,-on individual basis, could perhaps have been attended to by the University itself after the ‘Muddappa Committee’ made its recommendations. The Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the Mysore University, while appearing before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in C.C.C.Nos. 84 to 103 of 1992 in compliance to the Order dated 16th April, 1992 had brought to the notice of the Bench that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in W.A. Nos. 2220 to 2239/1989 dated 18.4.1990 and 29.1.1991 had already been complied with and arrears of salary had been paid to the employees of the University, who filed the said Writ Petitions. Thereafter, the respondent-University submitted certain proposed amendments to the Statute and the same were sent to the State Government for approval. The State Government, for the reasons best known to it, till date has not been able to state any good reason as to why the amendment of the Statute as proposed by the University in regard to the fixation of the pay scales of its employees could not have been approved by the competent authority. The Vice-Chancellor in its affidavit dated 25.1.2000 filed in the Writ Appeal Nos. 7007-55/1999 has categorically stated that the respondent-University, in its Meeting held on 17.4.1999, decided to comply with the orders of the Court and also to extend the benefit of the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1997 to those employees who are eligible for such benefits and have not gone to the Court. This decision was taken on the representation submitted by the appellants. The defence of the State Government that as the appellants were not the petitioners in the writ petition filed by 23 employees of the respondent-University to whom the benefit of revised pay scales was granted by the Court, the appellants are estopped from raising their claim of revised pay scales in the year 1992-94, is wholly unjustified, patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, revised pay scales were given to those 23 employees in the year 1991 when the contempt proceedings were initiated against the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Mysore. The benefits having been given to 23 employees of the University in compliance with the decision dated 21.6.1989 recorded by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 21487-21506/1982, it was expected that without resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed, including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits, which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also the movement of files and papers which only waste public time.(Paras 15 and 16)