1. MR v. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.1867, I MAIN ROAD, 7TH
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6736 OF 2022 (S-R) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 14996 OF 2021 (S-RES) IN WP NO. 6736/2022 BETWEEN: 1. MR. V. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.1867, I MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST, BANGALORE-560065. 2. MR. VENKOBA RAO R S/O LATE SRI. P.Y.RANOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT NO.404, PADMAKUNJ 4TH CROSS, 8TH D MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYANA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560043. 3. MR. K.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA S/O LATE SRI MARALUSIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, 5TH A MAIN, ESCORTS LAYOUT, ATTUR, YELAHANKA NEW POST, BANGALORE-560064. 4. MR.A.VIJAYAMURTHY S/O P.M.ANJANI RAMAIAH AGD 83 YEARS, NO.M-3-15, NEW 39, MADAN NIVAS, NANDIDURGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560041. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 5. MR.K.S.RAGHUNATH S/O LATE SRI SEETHARAMAIH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, NO.176, 7TH MAIN, 2ND C CROSS, NAGENDRA BLACK, SBM COLONY, BANGALORE-560050. 6. MR. G.K.SESHAGIRI RAO S/O LATE G.S.KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, NO.7/1, 1ST TEMPLE STREET, 16TH CROSS, MALESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. 7. MR.SHESHACHALAM V S/O LATE SRI K.V. VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, NO.891, 16TH MAIN, 21ST CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST, BANGALORE-560065. 8. MR.T.GOPAL S/O LATE SRI TIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, NO.475, 25TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST, BANGALORE-560065. (BY SRI. VYASA KIRAN UPADHYA B.R., AND SRI SIDDHARTHA H.M., ADVS.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. DEPARTMENT OF LAW JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 3. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU -560 001 REP. BY REGISTRAR GENERAL. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY FINANCE (SERVICE-2) M S BUILDING V PHASE, BENGALURU-560 001. 5. OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 & R5 SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A)DECLARE THAT RULE 4(A) OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS) REVISED PAY RULES, 2018 IN SO FAR AS IT FIXES A CUT-OFF DATE OF 06/10/2004, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC. IN WP NO. 14996/2021 BETWEEN: 1. B KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE G.V BHARADWAJ, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, NO.969, 16TH CROSS, 16TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST, BENGALURU 560065. 2. P DATTATREYA BHAT S/O LATE H.PADMANABHA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, NO.1, 5TH CROSS, I BLOCK, ANANDANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. 3. P M KULKARNI S/O LATE MADHVARAO R KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 NO.273, 11TH CROSS, SARASWATHINAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040. 4. MUNIRAJ V S/O.LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.68, MC LAYOUT, 16TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040. 5. B S ANANTHARAMAN S/O LATE B.SAMBASIVAN, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, NO.302, SAPTHAGIRI RESIDENCY, 7TH CROSS, III STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560085. 6. B B SATIESH S/O LATE A.M. BELLIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.9, 11TH A CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560097. 7. SRINIVASA RAO P S/O.LATE P.RAO, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, NEAR CHIKKA ANJANEYA TEMPLE, KOLAR-563101. 8. P NARASIMHAN AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, NO.522, 11TH A CROSS, 8TH MAIN, J P NAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. 9. R V GOPALA RAO S/O LATE R.VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, NO.1026, 13TH A MAIN, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 THIRUMALAMBAR ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560019. 10. M K JAYARAM S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, NO.852, 31-A CROSS, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041. 11. H N SHANTHAMMA S/O LATE H.NARASIMHACHAR, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, NO.1205, 26TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560069. 12. SHIVALINGAPPA K AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, DOOR NO.116, VINAYAKA EXTENSION, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560019. 13. ARTHUR DENIS JOHN AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, NO.24/1, 1ST CROSS, C.S.I. COMPOUND, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. 14. S R PADMA W/O LATE V.RAMABADRAN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, NO.SF2, BHASKARA NEST APARTMENT, SEENAPPA LAYOUT, NEW BHEL ROAD, BENGALURU-560094. 15. J NEELAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.792, VII BLOCK, II PHASE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 16. H K NAGABHUSHANA S/O.H.K.NAGABHUSHANA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, NO.777, SWIMMING POOL ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560086. 17. S G RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE S GURUNATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, NO.1303, 3A CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560065. 18. BHIMASEN RAO KULKARNI S/O LATE ANANTARAO KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, NO.1172, 10TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST, BENGALURU-560065. 19. H S NAGABHUSHAN S/O LATE H.SHRIKANTIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, K-001, NCC MEDOWS-2, DODABALLAPURA ROAD, PUTTENAHALLI, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560064. 20. N SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, NO.87, HOMBALE MAYURAVARMA ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560019. 21. RAMU AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, NO.548, 9TH MAIN ROAD, MC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040. 22. LAKSHMAN K V AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, NO.791/842, 1ST D ROAD, II PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560085. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 23. H B NEELAKANTACHAR AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, NO.20/4, 16TH A MAIN ROAD, II CROSS, JAYANAGAR, GH LAYOUT III BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011. 24. T SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, NO.105, IV CROSS, VITTAL NAGAR, BENGALURU-560018. 25. K V HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, NO.317/11, 9TH J MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040. 26. B A BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, NO.136, 3RD MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079. 27. AMBIKA BAI C AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, NO.7, RAGHAV NILAYA, 7TH TEMPLE ROAD, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003. 28. SRIKANTH K S/O LATE K.G. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.434/A, 6TH CROSS, VII BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560082. 29. SUNDAR RAJ R S S/O LATE R.J.S. MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, NO.94, VISWALAYA, 4TH CROSS, I BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 30. ABDUL HAFEEZ S/O ABDUL GHANI, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.31/1, COCKBURN ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560051. 31. CHANIYAPPA NAIKA K S/O K. RAMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, FLAT NO.3-50/7, GUBBI CROSS, BENGALURU NORTH-560077. 32. KRISHNA NAIK K AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, NO.3, PALACE LOOP ROAD, VASANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560052. 33. NARAYANA A D AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.1023, 5TH BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. 34. B M VENKATAPPA S/O MUDALAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, NO.9, IV MAIN SRIKANTESWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560098. 35. N BHEEMA RAO S/O B. NIMBOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, NO.18, 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560032. 36. SMT. VIJAYA M S W/O LATE K SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 NO.A103, ELEGANT EMBASSY NORTH, JAKKUR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064. 37. NARASIMHAMURTHY K R S/O LATE K.V.RAMASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, NO.680, BSK 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560050. 38. N M KULAKARNI S/O LATE SIR.M.KULAKARNI, AGED ABOUT 81YEARS, NO.A0101, D.S.MAX SAVERA APARTMENTS, UTTARAHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560061. (BY SRI. VYASA KIRAN UPADHYA B R., ADV.) ...PETITIONERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. DEPARTMENT OF LAW JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 3. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY REGISTRAR GENERAL. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY FINANCE (SERVICE-2), M.S. BUILDING V PHASE, BENGALURU-560001. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 5. OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4 SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR R3 R5 – NOTICE H/S V/O DATED 26.11.2021) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT RULE 4(A) OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS) REVISED PAY RULES, 2018 IN SO FAR AS IT FIXES A CUT-OFF DATE OF 06.10.2004 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DIRECT THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE R1 HEREIN TO EXTENT THE BENEFIT OF REVISION IN PAY SCALE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENSIONARY AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS, AS PER THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS) REVISED PAY RULES, 2018. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Since prayer of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is common, both the writ petitions are taken up
Decision
together, heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners in both the writ petitions have prayed for the common relief, which reads as under: “a) Declare that Rule 4(a) of the ‘High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 Revised Pay Rules, 2018’ insofar as it fixes a cut-off date of 06.10.2004, is unconstitutional. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the State of Karnataka, the first respondent herein to extend the benefit of revision in pay scale for the purpose of pensionary and other benefits to the petitioners, as per the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised pay Rules, 2018.” 3. The petitioners claim that they are retired employees of the third respondent – High Court of Karnataka, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation prior to 06.10.2004. On the recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka – respondent No.3 herein, the first respondent published High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018 (for short, ‘2018 Rules’). The said Rules though was published under the notification dated 06.03.2018, was given effect to from 06.10.2004, the date of proposal forwarded by the third - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 respondent. The petitioners are before this Court questioning the said cut-off date of 06.03.2018 fixed in the 2018 Rules, stating that the same is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to law. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vyasakiran Upadhya.B.R., and Sri.Siddhartha.H.M., learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayathri for respondent No.3. Perused the writ petition papers. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are retired employees of the third respondent and they retired prior to 06.10.2004. Learned counsel would further state that the petitioners were doing the same work as their counterparts, who were in service subsequent to 06.10.2004. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, not extending the benefit of the 2018 Rules to the retired - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 employees prior to 06.10.2004 would amount to discrimination and the action of the respondents are discriminatory and unreasonable. Learned counsel would further submit that the third respondent being the State, cannot discriminate the employees and submits that though the notification implementing the revision of pay was published in March, 2018, the same was given effect to from 06.10.2004 without there being any basis. 6. It is also contended that the State Government sought to treat the persons who are similarly placed unequally. The petitioners who are retired prior to 2004 are similarly placed to the persons who are retired subsequent to 06.10.2004. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS1. 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 100 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the State has fixed the cut-off date as 06.10.2004 to give effect to the notification published on 06.03.2018 to implement the revised pay scales under 2018 Rules. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the basis for fixing the cut-off date is the proposal of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, which was forwarded on 06.10.2004. He submits that prior to 06.10.2004, there was no proposal and further he invites attention of this Court to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 12.10.2011 in W.A.No.4411/2011, wherein it is held that the letter of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka dated 06.10.2004 shall be treated as Rule and to place the same before the Cabinet. Thus, he submits that the cut-off date fixed as 06.10.2004 is reasonable and it is not discriminatory. Further, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the petitioners are not similarly situated persons and they have not been treated unequally. He submits that the petitioners were - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 retired prior to 06.10.2004 and the benefit of 2018 Rules is extended to the persons who retired subsequent to 06.10.2004, based on the proposal forwarded by the third respondent on 06.10.2004. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. Learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayathri for respondent No.3 would submit that the Association of employees of the third respondent made a representation on 09.02.1999 with a request to extend the Central Government Pay Scale to the High Court Employees. Two Committees were appointed on 16.09.1999 as well as on 27.10.2002 to examine the representation of the employees and thereafter on 06.10.2004, the Hon’ble Chief Justice forwarded the proposal to the State Government to extend the benefits of Central Government pay scale to the High Court employees. Further, learned counsel would submit that earlier to the said proposal, there was no proposal forwarded to the State Government. Learned counsel placing reliance on the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. AMAR NATH GOYAL AND OTHERS2 submits that fixing the cut-off date is a policy decision and unless the petitioners establish unreasonableness, the same cannot be interfered with. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which would arise for consideration is as to, “Whether the cut-off date fixed as 06.10.2004 for extension of Central Civil Services Pay Rules to the officials of the third respondent – High Court of Karnataka and also for extending the pensionary benefits in respect of the officers of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka who are retired on or before 06.10.2004 requires interference at the hands of this Court?” 2 (2005) 6 SCC 754 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 10. The answer to the above point would be in the negative and the cut-off date fixed is reasonable, which does not call for interference for the following reasons: 11. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (supra), fixing cut-off date is a policy decision of the State Government and while fixing the cut-off date, the State shall have to take note of the Financial and Economic implications which are relevant and germane. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ARVIND KUMAR DIXIT AND ANOTHER3, while answering the question as to whether fixing the cut-off date on 01.04.2003 by the Corporation in the matter of wage revision was arbitrary or not, at paragraphs 17 and 18, placing reliance on the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held as follows. “17. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the cut-off date i.e. 1-4-2003 fixed in the above orders is arbitrary and irrational. 3 (2015) 2 SCC 535 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 As to the cut-off date fixed for the purposes of pensionary benefits to the employees, who have retired or died, in State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal [(2005) 6 SCC 754 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 910] , paras 26 and 37 read as under : (SCC pp. 763 & 766) “26. It is difficult to accede to the argument on behalf of the employees that a decision of the Central Government/State Governments to limit the benefits only to employees, who retire or die on or after 1-4-1995, after calculating the financial implications thereon, was either irrational or arbitrary. Financial and economic implications are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administration of the Government, at the Centre or at the State level. *** 37. In the instant case before us, the cut- off date has been fixed as 1-4-1995 on a very financial valid ground, namely, constraints. Consequently, we the contention that fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14.” that of reject 18. In Sudhir Kumar Consul v. Allahabad Bank [(2011) 3 SCC 486 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 538] , which also pertains to the question of fixing of cut-off date for granting retirement benefits, this Court has laid down, in para 18, as under : (SCC p. 491) “18. Moreover, the fixing of the cut-off date for granting retirement benefits such as the different gratuity or pension under - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 in incorporated the subordinate schemes legislation, thereby, creating two distinct and separate classes of employees is well within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution. The differential treatment of two sets of officers appointed prior to the notified date would not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The cut- off date may be justified on the ground that additional outlay as involved or the fact that under the terms of appointment, the employee was not entitled to the benefit of pension or retirement.”” 12. In the instant case, the Hon’ble chief justice of the third respondent forwarded a proposal on 06.10.2004 to extend the Central Civil Services Pay Rules to the employees of the High Court. As the said proposal was not accepted, one of the retired employee of High Court of Karnataka was before this Court in W.P.Nos.2810/2007 C/w 39658/2010 and 12993/2011, disposed off on 26.04.2011 and not being satisfied with the learned Single Judge’s order, W.A.No.4411/2011 was filed and the said writ appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 12.10.2011, wherein the Division Bench at paragraph 32 has held as follows: “32. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion in the light of the ratio laid down by the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in CHANRARANT SARHARAM KARKHANIS case followed by the Division Bench of the Gujarath High Court in the matter of K.K.PARMAR'S case, it has now become necessary that this Court will have to hold that the contents of letter dated 6.10.2004 issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka in itself are the Rules framed pursuant to Article 229(2) of the Constitution with reference to fixation of revised pay scale to the employees of the High Court of Karnataka. Accordingly, the same should be placed by the State Government before its Cabinet at the earliest and dispose of the same in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the matter of UNION OF INDIA -VS- S.B.VOHRA, AIR 2004 SC 1402.” 13. The Division Bench in the above judgment has categorically observed that contents of the letter dated 06.10.2004 issued by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka in itself was the Rules framed pursuant to Article 229(2) of the Constitution with reference to fixation of revised pay scales to the employees of High Court of Karnataka. Subsequently, the said letter is treated as Rule and the same was placed before the Cabinet, which - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 approved the publication of 2018 Rules with effect from 06.10.2004 being the date of proposal forwarded by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka. The basis for fixing the cut-off date as 06.10.2004 is the date of forwarding proposal of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka to the first respondent-State. When the Division Bench observed to treat the proposal of the Hon’ble Chief Justice itself as Rules framed under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India, taking the proposal as cut-off date is not irrational or arbitrary or unreasonable, as contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS (supra) to contend that the cut-off date is arbitrary and as it deprives the benefit of pay revision which is otherwise made applicable to all employees who worked during a particular period. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:173 WP No. 6736 of 2022 C/W WP No. 14996 of 2021 15. No doubt, the petitioners were employees of the High Court, but they retired prior to 06.10.2004 and they are not similarly placed persons to that of the persons who are in service subsequent to 06.10.2004, even though they discharged their similar work, when they were in service. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision supra was considering the case of employees who were working during the period between 2000 to 2005 who were denied benefits extended to the other employees. Such is not the case in the instant case. Therefore, the said decision would not assist the case of the petitioners. 16. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the writ petitions and accordingly writ petitions stand rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63