DR LATHA B v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. S B MUKKANNAPPA .,ADVOCATE) AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, (MEDICAL EDUCATION) 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, (GOVT. OF KARNATAKA-AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION) FORT, K.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. (BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24785 WP No. 32057 of 2014 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDERS DATED 30.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-2 TO EACH OF THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXS-R,R1 TO R5 RESPECTIVELY; DIRECT THE R-2 TO RESTORE THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 18/25.2.2014 VIDE ANNEX-M PASSED BY THE R-2 AND CONSEQUENTLY EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 18/25.2.2014 VIDE ANNEX-M TO THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision to withdraw the benefit of pay scale extended to them, and the impugned Office Order dated 30.05.2014 in this regard is as per Annexure-R. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioners, who were working as Associate Professors with the second respondent, were issued with Office Orders dated

12.03.2014 at the first instance informing them that the pay scale extended to them vide the Office Order - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:24785 WP No. 32057 of 2014 dated 18/25.02.2014 is withdrawn with immediate effect stipulating that extension of such pay scale would be considered once clarification is issued by the Government. The petitioners were also directed to repay the additional amount paid to them in accordance with such pay scale in one lump sum.

2. The petitioners being aggrieved by these similar but separate orders dated 12.03.2014, have approached this Court with their writ petitions in W.P. Nos.13875-13884/2014. This Court has favoured these petitions in part by Order dated

27.03.2014 primarily on the ground that the benefit conferred on the petitioners vide the Order dated 18/25.02.2014 cannot be withdrawn without extending an opportunity as that would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court has observed that it would not be necessary to quash these Office Orders and interest of justice would be served if these orders are read as show - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24785 WP No. 32057 of 2014 cause notices with opportunity to the petitioners to file reply. This Court has further observed that the respondents shall not insist on repayment of the amounts.

3. The petitioners have thereafter filed their common representation essentially emphasizing the following. The Institutions, such as the second respondent, is converted into an autonomous institution with orders for absorption of teaching and non-teaching staff. The petitioners are promoted from the cadre of Assistant Professors to the cadre of Professors with the stipulation that those who have completed 12 years either as lecturers or Associate Professors would be entitled to pay scale of Rs.18400- 500-22400. In the meanwhile, a new cadre of Associate Professors between the cadres of Assistant Professors and Professors is created, and even those who were promoted as Associate Professors were granted the benefit of such pay scale. The petitioners - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:24785 WP No. 32057 of 2014 have asserted that this was to remove the anomaly that would have been with a higher pay scale being given to the Associate Professors directly recruited.

4. The second respondent, in considering a rather detailed objections as against the withdrawal of a higher pay scale, has perfunctorily issued Office Order dated 30.05.2014 stating that the order dated 18/25.02.2014 is withdrawn temporarily subject to the Government's clarification on the pay scales to be extended to other 35 Associate Professors on its rolls. The second respondent is categorical impugned Office Order dated 30.05.2014 that until clarification is received from the Government there will be no recoveries. The learned counsels for the parties are heard in the light of these circumstances and the march of time without any further action.

5. The second respondent, though petitioners have filed a detailed report setting forth certain definite circumstances to justify extension of - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:24785 WP No. 32057 of 2014 higher pay scale, has not adverted to any of those circumstances. This is even after this Court's order intervention with the earlier Office orders dated 18/25.02.2014 to treat these orders as notices and permitting the petitioners to file a detailed response calling upon the second respondent to consider the same. This Court must observe that it was rather imperative for the second respondent to assign reasons to justify the decision subject to further orders of the Government and that the second respondent could not have left the question hanging.

6. This Court must next observe that the second respondent's decision to withdraw benefits of the pay scale extended subject to the Government's clarification has its reasons in the audit objections, and this Court could opine that the impugned orders are issued to keep the issue under wraps to forestall consequences. It has been about a decade without any decision. Some of the petitioners - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:24785 WP No. 32057 of 2014 have retired from service, and with the respondents not raising any questions on payment of retiral benefits, it can be assumed that there is no dispute about the payment of retirement benefits to the petitioners.

7. This Court, the peculiarities and circumstances discussed, must opine that the second respondent's efforts to keep things under wrap cannot be continued indefinitely, and if the second respondent has not taken action because of the present proceedings and proposes to initiate action for recovery because of the pay scales extended, it must state the circumstances in which the pay scales are extended and invite Government's comments, if any, and initiate action post the Government's comments. This action must be at the earliest and not otherwise lest the petitioners are forever forced with an uncertain situation. Hence the following: - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:24785 WP No. 32057 of 2014 ORDER The petitions are accepted quashing the second respondent's impugned Office orders dated 30.05.2014 [as per Annexure R] with liberty to the second respondent to initiate proceedings but subject to this Court's observations as aforesaid. SD/- JUDGE AN/-, NV