http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4163-4164 of 2004

PETITIONER: State of Karnataka & Anr

RESPONDENT: Karnataka State Patels Sangha  & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/02/2007

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & H.S.BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

WITH  CIVIL APPEAL NO.850 OF 2006.

A.K. MATHUR, J.

               These appeals are  directed against the   orders passed  by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at  Bangalore dated 25.2.2002  and 18.7.2005 whereby the Division  Bench of the High Court has affirmed the direction given by the  learned Single Judge which reads as follows:

               " 12.(i)        Compassionate allowance  made payable by Government Order No.RD 443  MVS 182 dated 20-9-1984 (Annexure-A) to the Ex- hereditary Patels  is made payable from August  1,1979 instead of from August 15,1984. Such of  those persons who received compassionate  allowance at Rs.100/- a month pursuant to the order  at Annexure-A are therefore entitled to the arrears at  that rate from 01-08-1979 to 15-08-1984.

       (ii)  Enhanced ad-hoc allowance at Rs.500/- a  month made payable to such of those Ex-hereditary  Patels by order at Annexure-B dated May 30,1994 is  made payable from July 1, 1990 instead of from  January 1, 1994. Accordingly, such of those persons  who are drawing the adhoc allowance of Rs.500/-  would be entitled to the arrears at that rate from 01- 07-1990 to 01-01-1994.

       (iii)   If the petitioner-Patel Srinivasa Reddy ( in  W.P.No.33919 has made application either for grant  of compassionate allowance or for grant of adhoc  allowance pursuant to the orders at Annexures-’A’  and ’B’ before the appropriate authority, that  application or those applications shall be considered  on merits and if he is found eligible, he shall be paid  compassionate allowance at Rs.100/- a month from  01-08-1979 till 30-06-1990 and ad-hoc allowance at  Rs.500/- from 01-07-1990 till date.         (iv)    Applications, if any, by persons claiming to  be Gumasta Patel are pending before the competent  authorities, those applications shall be considered on  merits and if they are otherwise found eligible they  shall be paid compassionate allowance at Rs.100/- a  month from 01-08-1979 to 30-06-1990 and ad-hoc

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

allowance at Rs.500/- from 01-07-1990 till date."

Respondent No.1 is Karnataka State Patels Sangha and Respondent  No. 2 is  Patel Srinivasa Reddy. The present writ petition was filed by  the respondents claiming similar treatment as was given to  Shanbhogues category of  Village Officers. The contention in the writ  petition was that both Patels as well as Shanbhogues are holders of  similar offices within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Karnataka  Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ( hereinafter to be referred to as  "the Act"). After abolition of these village offices, Shanbhogues were  granted compassionate allowance or ad hoc pension at the rate of  Rs.100/- per month with effect from 30.7.1979 and the same was  raised to Rs.500/- per month  with effect from 20.7.1991. So far as  Patels are concerned, their demand for grant of similar treatment i.e.  ad hoc pension or compassionate allowance at the rate of Rs.100/-  per month was also conceded by the State  with effect from 1.8.1984  and similarly, the enhancement of compassionate allowance was also  made to Rs.500/- per month with effect from 30.5.1994. Therefore,  the grievance of the Association of Patels i.e. the members of the  Association  was that when the Shanbhogues were given the benefit  w.e.f. 30.7.79 & 20.7.1991, then similar treatment should also be  given to the members of the Respondent No.1- Association with  effect from the same  date as they were similarly situated. Since it  was denied to them, therefore, they filed writ petition in the High  Court of Karnataka seeking a direction against the State Government  for extending the similar benefit as was given to the Shanbhogues.  Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and  granted similar benefit with retrospective effect as was given to the  Shanbhogues i.e. ad hoc pension  of Rs.100/- with effect from the  same date as was given to the Shanbhogues Village Officers and  likewise enhanced allowance at the rate of Rs.500/- from the same  date as was given to the Shanbhogues.  Aggrieved against the order  of the learned Single Judge, the matter was taken up before the  Division Bench and the Division Bench affirmed the order of the  learned Single Judge.  Aggrieved against the order of the Division  Bench of the High Court the appellants have filed the present  appeals.  

               Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the State  Government strenuously urged before us that the position of the  Shanbhogues and that of the Patels are different and their duties are  also different. Therefore, the respondents cannot claim similar  treatment. Mr.Hegde tried to take us to the history in order to justify  that these two offices are separate and they were not discharging  similar duties. Therefore, they cannot claim parity and the view taken  by the Karnataka High Court is not sustainable. We need not go to  the background because the two orders which have been produced  under which the allowance was given to the Patels on the  understanding that both the offices are similar and they used to  discharge similar duties. Therefore, similar treatment was  conceded  by the State. But only difficulty was that for Shanbhogues employees    compassionate allowance at the rate of Rs.100/- per month was  given with effect from 30.7.1979  and to the Patels it was given with  effect from 1.8.1984 and the same was enhanced to Rs.500/- per  month with effect from 30.5.1994 instead of  from  1991. This  grievance was redressed by learned Single Judge and rightly so in  our opinion  because once both the offices i.e. village Offices were  held hereditarily by the two class of persons and they were  discharging same revenue functions, then there should not have  been any discrimination between the persons similarly situated. The  High Court has rightly granted the respondents the same treatment  from the same date as was given to the Shanbhogues.  Once it is  accepted by the State Government that they were similarly placed  and they were discharging similar duties,  then there was no  justification on the part of the State Government not to give the same

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

treatment from the same date as was given to Shanbhogues.   Mr.Hegde, learned counsel for the appellants tried to take us through  the judgment of learned Single Judge which goes back into the  history and tried to justify the action of the State Government. But in  view of the fact that when the State Government themselves have  conceded and granted similar treatment to the Patels taking them to  be similarly situated, then there was no justification to deny them  the  similar treatment as was given to the Shanbhogues employees.

               Mr.Hegde, learned counsel submitted that these are all  concessions and no mandamus can be issued  and in support of his  submission, he invited our attention to a decision of this Court in The  State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C.Mandawar  ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 599).  In this case, the question  was with regard to grant of dearness  allowance under Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules.  Discretion vests  with the local Government whether it will grant dearness allowance to  any Government servant and if so how much. It imposes no duty on  the State to grant it and therefore no mandamus can be issued to  compel the State to grant it  nor can any other writ or direction be  issued  in respect of it as there is no right in the Government servant  which is capable of being protected or enforced. This was in the  context of an individual seeking dearness allowance under Rule 44 of  the Fundamental Rules  and in that context,  the Court held that no  mandamus can be issued for grant of dearness allowance as  it was  the discretion of the local Government  and it cannot be regulated by  issuing mandamus.  Therefore, this case stands on a different  footing.  The case before us is for invoking Article 14 of the  Constitution when two class of persons are similarly situated, then  one cannot be discriminated against.

               As against this, learned counsel for the respondents  invited our attention to a decision of this Court in State of A.P. v.  G.Ramakishan & Ors. [ (2001) 1 SCC 323]. This was a case where  stipend was given to the postgraduate students of Agricultural  University from a date posterior to the date from which the same  enhanced rate was given to the postgraduate students of Medical  Colleges.  Then the question arose that when the Postgraduate  students of Agricultural University and the postgraduate students of  Medical Colleges are similarly placed, then what is the basis for  giving the  stipend   from different dates.  This Court held that in  absence of any pleading  stating any reasonable or rational basis for  giving enhanced stipend with effect from two different dates  and any  material in support of such action was violative of Article 14 of the  Constitution and this Court directed that same benefit should be  extended from  date posterior  as was given to the Postgraduate  students of Medical Colleges.  Similar is the position here.  When the  Patels and Shanbhogues  both  were holders of village Offices and  discharging identical  duties, then there was no justification to  deny  the respondents  the same benefits as was given to the  Shanbhogues.  

               As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any  merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. No order as to  costs.