http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: RAO SOMASHEKARA & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/09/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                           W I T H        (Writ Petition Nos. 827/90, 822, 416 & 718/91)                       J U D G M E N T M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.      These five writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of  India are  all connected and raise the same questions.  The petitioners are Secondary School Teachers in the State  of Karnataka serving in Government and Government aided Secondary Schools.      Certain Secondary grade teachers in the former State of Hyderabad which  were allotted  to the State of Karnataka as on 1.11.1956.  After reorganisation, the corresponding posts in former  State of Mysore were equate with the posts of the allotted personnel.   There  was revision  of pay  scale  on 1.1.1957 and  again on  1.1.1961 but  the disparity  in  pay scales was  allowed to continue.  This anomaly was continued till 1.1.1970  - for  nearly fourteen  years, when  for  the first time  under the  concerned  Karnataka  Civil  Services (Revised Pay Rules), 1970 which came into force on 1.1.1970, based on  the report of the pay Commission headed by Justice Tukol, the  scales  were  brought  on  par  with  scales  of allotted Hyderabad  officers prospectively  by enhancing the scales of  the all  Karnataka teachers w.e.f. 1.1.1970.  But the grievance of the Secondary School teachers of Government of Karnataka  for the  period from  1.1.1957  to  31.12.1969 continued and  has not been removed.  That is the subject of these writ petitions.      It is  stated that,  so far as disparities in pay among Mysore and  Karnataka Primary school teachers on the one had and  allotted   Hyderabad  primary   school   teachers   are concerned, Government  orders as  late as  1986 showed  that those grievance  also arise out of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956  in respect of pay scale disparities and have been removed by  the Government  of Karnataka.   On  that  basis, petitioners,  Secondary   school  teachers   of  Mysore  and Karnataka claim  that distance  of time is no bar to relieve their  legitimate   grievance  for   the  period  1.1.57  to 31.12.69.      In support  of this  contention, reliance  is placed on two sets of facts.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    Firstly the  non-allottee primary  school  teachers  of Karnataka  filed  Writ  Petition  No.2801  of  1971  in  the Karnataka High  Court for  equating their pay scale with the Hyderabad area  primary school  teachers.   The  High  Court dismissed the  said writ petition on 10.1.1975 on the ground of laches after however holding that the denial of equal pay was discriminatory.   In SLP No.908 of 1975 preferred by the Writ petitioners therein to this Court in Sri Raghuram Hegde & others  vs. State  of Mysore,  a compromise was arrived at with prospective  effect from  1.1.1978 stating  that 50% of the difference  between the  pay scales  will be given.  The pay as  on 1.1.1978 of the Karnataka Primary School teachers was to be increased by 50% prospectively w.e.f. 1.1.78.  The scales were  increased only  for purpose  of computation and fixation  of  pay  but  not  for  payment  of  arrears  upto 31.12.77.  Various details as contained in the compromise so arrived at  were incorporated  in  the  proceedings  of  the Government of  Karnataka dated  10.8.1979.   Again, when the above  compromise  was  being  implemented,  the  Government stopped the  benefit of  this compromise  from  accruing  to primary school  teachers recruited in the State of Karnataka after 1.11.56.   This  was challenged  successfully in  B.T. Ramaswamy vs.  State of  Karnataka (W.P.  54/82  and  batch) before the  High Court  of Karnataka  by judgment dated 6.12 1985.   Thereafter Government  issued an  order as  late  as 8.7.1986. extending the benefit of its order dated 19.8.1979 by giving  increased scales  of pay  to all  primary  school teachers i.e.  not only  to those  of erstwhile Mysore State but also  to the primary teachers recruited after 1.11.1956. This was  restricted to  primary teachers who were recruited upto 31.12.1969.  The Government directed the payment of the higher pay  scale as per their earlier order dated 10.8.1979 and arrears  for the  period 1.1.78  to 31.4.1986 were to be credited to  the General  Provident  Fund  Account  and  the difference payable  after 1.1.1986  to  the  primary  school teachers was to be paid in cash.  Thus as late as 8.7.96 the state of Karnataka removed grievances of primary teachers in regard to  pay etc.   as  compared  to  erstwhile  Hyderabad primary teachers allotted to Karnataka.      Secondly,   the Karnataka  High Court by judgment dated 7.9.1975 extended the benefits of the Government order dated 10.8.79 to  primary school teachers in grant-in-aid schemes. This was  not interfered  with by  this Court  in  State  of Karnataka  vs.   A  Venkatappayya   (CA  No.13757/96   dated 28.10.97).  In that judgment this Court also referred to the dismissal of  SLPs (C)  21003-113 etc. of 1993 dated 22.8.94 whereby this  Court refused  to interfere  with the order of the State  Administrative Tribunal extending the benefits of the order dated 10.8.79 to the primary school teachers under the local authorities of Karnataka.      In view  of the above said two positive developments in favour of  primary school  teachers,  the  Secondary  school teachers approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in OA 2205 and 2206 of 1987 contending that they should get pay scale  equalisation   for  the   period  from   1.1.1957  to 31.12.1969 also.   The  Tribunal rejected  the petition  the ground of  laches on  14.12.1989.   Thereafter, the  present Writ petitions  have been filed by other Karnataka Secondary Grade Teacher  in this  Court claiming  eqalisation  of  pay scales from  1.1.1957 to  31.12.1969 and  payment of arrears for that  period.   That is  how these  writ petitions  have arisen.      It  is   contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the petitioners Secondary  School teachers  that as late as 1986 and now  1994 and  1996 all  pay-scale grievance  of primary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

school teachers  of almost  all descriptions  arising out of States Reorganisation  Act, have  been favourably removed by the State  government, but  the grievances  of the Secondary School teachers,  also arising  out of  State Reorganisation for  the   period  1.1.1957  to  31.12.1969  have  not  been redressed and  this is discriminatory It is pointed out that this was done by even directing the arrears to be credited t their P.F.  account and  extending all  benefits to  primary teachers recruited  after 1.11.1956  upto 31.12.1969.    The petitioners contend  that the  fixation of  31/12/96 as  the date from which the equality will be maintained is not based on any  rational criteria  having nexus  with the  anomalies arising out of the State Reorganisation Act. Learned counsel for some  of the  petitioners Mr.  S.R. Bhat  argued that in regard to  the  period  for  1.1.57  to  31.12.69  the  very continuance of  the grievance  for 14  years after 1.11.1956 till  1.1.1970   was  violative   of  Article   14  of   the Constitution  of  India.    Learned  counsel  placed  strong reliance on  the judgment  of this  Court in  Motor  General Traders vs.  State of  A.P. [1984  (1) SCC  222]  and  other cases.      On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that on  account of State Reorganisation in 1956, difference in scales  of  pay  between  allottee  officers  and  Mysore officers are  bound to arise and are justified on account of historical reasons  attributable to  different  geographical areas.   It is  also contended  that the petitioners who are Secondary School  teachers, have  the  petitioners  who  are Secondary School  teachers, have  opted for Karnataka Scales after 1.11.1956  and cannot  now raise these contention.  it is also  stated that  the case of primary teachers cannot be relied upon  to raise  a plea of discrimination, even if the grievances arise  out of  States Reorganisation.   The State has various options while clearing grievances and if it opts for a  particular formula  or fixes  a particular  date upto which alone  the pay  scales can  be revised.    It  is  not permissible for  the Court  of judicial  review to interfere with such a choice.  The finances of the State do not permit grant of this benefit to the secondary school teachers.      This Court  had occasion to go into the question of the temporary nature  of the  continuance of existing laws under Section 119  of the  States  Reorganisation  Act,  1956  and whether delays in rectifying the inequalities arising out of the said  Act should  be rectified  by the  State within any particular time  frame.   In State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  vs. Bhopal Sugar  Industries Ltd. [1964 (6) SCR 846 (852-854) it was observed  that though continuance of the laws of the old region after  the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 by section 119 of  that Act was not by itself discriminatory even if it resulted in  differential reactant  of persons,  objects and transactions in the new State because of historical reasons, still  ’passage   of  time’   could  make   the  continuance discriminatory.  it was observed in the above case that:      "By   the    passage    of    time,      considerations  of   necessity  and      expediency  would  be  obliterated,      and  the   ground  which  justified      classification   of    geographical      regions for  historical reasons may      cease  to   be  valid.    A  purely      temporary provision  which  because      of  compelling   forces   justified      differential  treatment   when  the      Reorganisation  Act   was   enacted      cannot obviously  be  permitted  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    assume   permanency,   so   as   to      perpetuate that treatment without a      rational basis  to support it after      the    initial    expediency    and      necessity have disappeared."      While accepting  that continuance  of existing  laws in the new State could not be continued without rational basis, this Court pointed out further as follows:      "But  whether  the  continuance  of      unequal laws  by  itself  sustained      the plea of unlawful discrimination      in view  of  changed  circumstances      could only  be ascertained  after a      null and  thorough enquiry into the      continuance of the grounds on which      the inequality  could rationally be      founded,   and    the   change   of      circumstances,   if    any,   which      obliterated   the   compulsion   of      expediency and  necessity  existing      at the time when the Reorganisation      Act was enacted."      Similar principles were laid down by this Court in H.H. Shri Swamiji  of Shri Admar Mutt. etc. vs. The Commissioner. Hindu Religious  & Charitable Endowments Department & Others [1980 (1)  SCR 368  (387-388)] wherein  it was observed that the "decision to withdraw the application of unequal laws to equals cannot  be delayed unreasonably because the relevance of historical  reasons ....  is bound  to wear  out with the passage of  time".   On the  facts of  the case,  the  Court refrained from  striking  down  the  provision  because  the period under  consideration was  just five  or six years and there was  no adequate data available to decide the question whether the  continuance  of  the  legislation  amounted  to hostile discrimination.   The above rulings were followed in Motor General  Traders  vs.  State  of  A.P.  cited  by  the petitioner’s counsel.      It is to be noticed that in these writ petitions, after 1.11.1956, the  disparities in  the scales  of pay continued till 1.1.970  and it  was only  from that  date that, on the basis of  Justice Tukol Commission report, the scales of the Mysore/Karnataka Secondary  School teachers  were brought on par with  those of  the Secondary  School  teachers  of  the erstwhile  Hyderabad   State  allotted   to  the   State  of Karnataka.   In other  words, the  State took about fourteen years to  set right  the disparities.   As  to  whether  any inquiry   is    necessary   for   deciding   about   hostile discrimination, the  petitioners contend  that there  is  no dispute because the posts in the allotted areas of Hyderabad State  and  of  Karnataka  were  equated  soon  after  1956. Question therefore  is whether,  in Writ  petitions filed in this Court in 1991, we are compelled to interfere?      We are of the view that the State Government had before it the  report of the Commission and on that basis it took a decision  that   the  disparities  should  stand  eliminated prospectively from  1.1.1970 and  not  retrospectively  from 1.1.1957.   The question  as to  whether the date from which the scales  ought to have been equated should be 1.1.1970 or an anterior  or a  later date  was a  matter which had to be arrived at  by taking  all factors into account.  It will be difficult for  this Court to decide as to from what date the continuance of  the existing  scales should  be  treated  as discriminatory or  the continuance would loose its temporary character  arising   out  of   section  119  of  the  States Reorganisation Act.   It  may be that the State of Karnataka

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

felt that  the grievance  of the non-allotted primary school teachers whose  salaries were  lesser than  the salaries  of non-allotted Secondary  School  teachers  was  a  matter  of graver concern  requiring redressal  even as late as 1979 or 1986.  Merely because the grievances of non-allotted primary teachers were  remedied even  after  considerable  lapse  of time, we  cannot say  that grievances  of  secondary  school teachers -  even if  it was  late -  should have  also  been redressed for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969.  Above all, the financial  burden involved was also a matter of relevant consideration.   We are  not therefore inclined to hold that the cut-off  dated of  1.1.1970 fixed  after the  report  of Justice Tukol  Commission, in  regard  to  Secondary  School teachers, is  arbitrary or  violative of Article 14.  In any event. principle  of laches  applies equally  to application under Article  32 of the Constitution o India [Rabindra Nath vs. Union of India (1970 (2) SCR 1697].      For the  aforesaid reasons,  these writ  petitions  are dismissed.