http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1216-1256 of 2003

PETITIONER: K. T. Veerappa & Ors

RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/04/2006

BENCH: B. N. Srikrishna & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

       This batch of 41 appeals arising out of the common  judgment and order dated 8th March, 2000 passed by the High  Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 7000- 7555/1999 were taken up for hearing together and are being  disposed of by this judgment.         The facts, in brief, are that the appellants are holding  non-teaching posts in the University of Mysore.  The pay  scales of the employees of the respondent-University, after the  Tukol Pay Commission Report, were based on the pay scales  recommended by the said Commission for the Government  employees of the State of Karnataka as adopted by the  University after due consideration of the duties and  responsibilities of the various posts in the University.  The pay  scales of Government employees were revised on the basis of  ’Narayana Pai Pay Commission Report’ with effect from 1st  January, 1977.  The University of Mysore-respondent No. 2  herein and other Universities in the State requested the State  Government to extend the pay scales recommended by the  Narayana Pai Pay Commission in its Report to the University  employees also.  The State Government appointed a  Committee, namely, ‘Muddappa Committee’, to go into the  entire matter and to make recommendations in that respect.   The said Committee made a Report with certain  recommendations as to the revision of pay scales to the  University employees, in the State of Karnataka.   It appears  that no satisfactory solution was found in the matter of fixing  of pay scales to the University employees with effect from 1st  January, 1977 and as a result thereof, a large number of  employees especially the academic  staff of the University of  Mysore have suffered heavily.  They filed representations  requesting the authorities to look into the grievances of the  employees and set right the anomalies.  In spite of the  recommendations in respect of the pay scales of the  employees, the University of Mysore has not implemented the  said Report.  23 employees of the respondent-University,  similarly placed to the appellants, filed Writ Petition Nos.  21487-21506/1982 before the High Court inter alia praying for  writ of mandamus commanding the State of Karnataka and  the University of Mysore to declare that the fixation of revised  pay scales with effect from 1.1.1977 in respect of the non- teaching (academic) staff of the University of Mysore insofar as  the petitioners (in those petitions) were concerned is arbitrary,  unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and  16 of the Constitution of India and direct the State and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

University to revise and re-fix the pay scales with effect from  1st January, 1977 at par with the employees of the State  Government  on the basis of the Pay Commission Report, 1976  as accepted by the University of Mysore.  The State of  Karnataka and the University of Mysore had not filed  objections/counter affidavits in opposition to the said writ  petitions which were allowed by the learned Single Judge by  order dated June 21, 1989 directing the University of Mysore  to accord revised pay scales to the petitioners on a rational  basis with effect from 1st January, 1977 with consequential  benefits including the difference of salary and further to  consider the question of revision of pay scales with effect from  1st January, 1982 and also subsequently as and when the pay  scales of other posts specified in column No. 5 of the  statement extracted in the said order have been revised and to  grant all consequential benefits.         Being aggrieved, against the judgment of the learned  Single Judge, the University of Mysore filed Writ Appeal Nos.  2220 to 2230 of 1989.   The said appeals were disposed of by  the Division Bench on 18th April, 1990 in the following terms:- "(i)    The petitioners may submit their  representations against the Report of the  Muddappa Committee before the Vice- Chancellor of the University of Mysore for  revising the pay-scales.  Within 4 weeks from  the date of submission of the representations,  the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint a Committee  of three persons to go into the representations  of the petitioners.  The Committee so appointed  shall hear the petitioners or their counsel and a  representative of the University or its counsel  and submit its Report to the Vice-Chancellor  within four weeks from the date of its  appointment.  Within six weeks from the date of  receipt of the Report of the Committee, the  University shall take a decision in the matter in  accordance with law regarding the pay-scales of  the petitioners.  In the event the pay scales are  revised, the same shall be given effect to from  1.1.1977 by suitably amending the Statutes.   Consequent to revision of pay scales to a higher  scale, the petitioners shall also be entitled to all  the consequential benefits including difference  of salary from 1.1.1977.

(ii)    The University is also directed to give effect to  the subsequent revisions in the pay-scales with  effect from 1.1.1982 and further revisions, if  any, subsequent to 1.1.1982, the University and  the benefit of the same shall also be extended to  the petitioners and the fitment in the pay-scales  revised with effect from 1.1.1982 and a further  revision, if any, shall be made on the basis of  the pay-scale revised with effect from 1.1.1977.   This direction shall also be complied with within  the aforesaid period.

       All the contentions of both sides are left open."

       In compliance to the directions of the Division Bench of  the Karnataka High Court, the Vice-Chancellor of respondent-  University constituted a  Committee of three members headed  by a Chairman - Shri K. Hiriyanna, Deputy Secretary to the  Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative  Reforms, Karnataka Government.  Having heard the affected

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

parties, the Committee made certain recommendations which  were accepted by the University and revised pay scales were,  accordingly, sanctioned.  However, the revised pay scales were  not paid to those petitioners whose petitions were allowed by  the learned Single Judge.  The said employees initiated  contempt proceedings against the University of Mysore, its  Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar.  The Vice-Chancellor and  the Registrar both appeared in person before the High Court  on 21st April, 1992 and submitted that the direction of the  Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 2220-2230 of 1989 dated 18th April,  1990 and 21st September, 1991 had already been complied  with and arrears of salary had been paid to those employees  whose writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge.   No benefit of pay scales was given to the appellants. The  appellants, therefore, represented to the Vice-Chancellor of the  University who again appointed Shri Hiriyanna to head a  Committee.  Shri Hiriyanna retired from service before the  Committee could finalise its Report and, thereafter, no  Committee was re-constituted to redress the grievances of the  appellants who continued to suffer the discrimination and  were given lower pay scales.           The appellants being similarly placed employees  approached the High Court of Karnataka by means of Writ  Petition Nos.11755/94, C/W 3400-3423/1993, 37901- 37904/1992, 35996/1992, 2436-3443/1993 and 27004/92.   The learned Single Judge of the Court relying upon the earlier  decision of the Division Bench dated 18th April, 1990, allowed  the writ petitions in the following terms:- (Vide para 6) "6.     It is not in dispute that the revised pay  scales of 1977 have been adopted and extended  to some of the employees of the University.  Since  the issue is already concluded, there is no  necessity to consider the same once again either  by reconstituting the Hiriyanna Committee or any  other authority.  The University being a statutory  body cannot make discrimination to its officers  and employees in the matter of extending same  benefit to others also.  Any such discrimination is  violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.........."

       It was further observed that in paragraph 6 of the Note  on Pay Anomalies dated 2.2.1988 put up by the Registrar of  the University, it is stated that "similarly placed employees"  were given the benefit of higher pay scales only because they  filed writ petitions.  The same is the position of the petitioners  herein also.  As a result, the writ petitions were allowed  directing the University of Mysore to extend the revised pay  scales of 1977 and the subsequent revision to the petitioners- appellants and pay the difference of monetary benefits to them  within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the  order.         Being aggrieved against the said judgment and order of  the learned Single Judge dated October 29, 1998, the State of  Karnataka through the Secretary, Department of Education,  filed writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court  Act, praying for setting aside  the order of the learned Single  Judge.  The Division Bench, accordingly, set aside the  impugned order of the learned Single Judge and recorded inter  alia the following order:                 "In the present case, it is a matter of record  as is even borne out from the affidavit of the Vice- Chancellor of the University filed on 27.1.2000  that no Statutes are framed to implement the  revised pay scales as per Scheme formulated by  the Division Bench of this Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

                  In the above view of the matter, in our  considered opinion it was not permissible on the  part of the learned Single Judge to issue a  direction of the nature impugned herein i.e.  directing the University to extend revised pay  scales and make payments accordingly within 2  months from the date of the receipt of the order.  It  can unhesitatingly be held that going by the order  of the earlier Division Bench referred to above,  even the employees who are before the Division  Bench were not entitled to any benefit of revised  pay scales till the Statues were framed.   It is for  the Vice-Chancellor of the University to take  appropriate measures to remedy the wrong after  giving due notice to the beneficiaries.                 Keeping the facts and circumstances of the  case, we find it advisable to direct the University to  take appropriate measures in terms of the Division  Bench directions which has to be of general nature  regarding revision of pay scales and forward the  draft Statutes to the Government for its  appropriate action in accordance with law.  When  such draft Statutes are received by the  Government then it will be for the Government to  take appropriate decision by taking into account  the relevant considerations.  Accordingly, the order  of the learned Single Judge is set aside.  Parties to  bear their own costs."

       Now, the appellants have filed these appeals by special  leave.           In the counter affidavit filed by the State of Karnataka, it  is admitted that the Government of Karnataka have revised  the pay scales of its employees with effect from 1st January,  1977 and this revision was also extended to the employees of  the Universities, including University of Mysore-respondent  No. 2.  Grant of benefit of revised pay scales by the University  to its 23 employees, who had succeeded in the earlier writ  petitions, is admitted.  It is stated that the order of the  Division Bench impugned in these appeals has only directed  the implementation of the first order of the Division Bench in  its true spirit.  The State, for the first time, has taken wholly  untenable stand that  pursuant to the order earlier passed by  the Division Bench,  the action of the University granting pay  scales to the 23 employees was not in accordance with the  provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 as the  pay scales of the employees of the University are to be fixed by  framing or amending the existing Statute of the University.         When the matter came up for consideration before this  Court on August 26, 2002 the learned counsel for the  University submitted that the State Government has not taken  a final decision in the matter with regard to the amendment of  the Statute. The matter came up before this Court for  consideration on February 7, 2003, when the learned counsel  for the State as well as the University submitted that the  proposed amendments to the Statute have not been approved  by the State Government.         Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are  satisfied that the appeals filed by the appellants deserve to be  allowed.  The learned  counsel for the appellants submitted  that the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High  Court has misinterpreted the earlier order of the Division  Bench which was binding upon the respondents-State and the  University.  According to the learned counsel, a Co-ordinate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

Bench is unjustified in commenting upon the earlier decision  of the Bench to say that even the employees, who were before  the Division Bench in the earlier appeals, were not entitled  to  any benefit of revised pay scales till the Statute was framed or  amendment to the existing Statute is approved by the State  Government/Chancellor.  According to the learned counsel,  the action of the State of Karnataka and the University of  Mysore, denying the benefits of revised pay scales to the  appellants, is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory.         Per contra, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel for the  State of Karntaka, has sought to support the judgment of the  Division Bench and contended that since the employees of the  Universities established in the State of Karnataka are bound  by their respective Statutes and unless the Statutes are  suitably amended or modified by the University authorities  and such amendment is finally approved by the Chancellor of  the University, the appellants and other employees of the  Universities in the State of Karnataka would not be entitled for  the benefits of the revised pay scales at par with the employees  of the State Government on the basis of Karnataka Civil  Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1970.         He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in  duties is the function of the Executive and financial capacity of  the Government and the priority given to different types of  posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also  relevant factors.   In support of this contention, he has placed  reliance in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Haryana  Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72  and Union of India and Anr. v. S.B. Vohra and Ors. (2004) 2  SCC 150.  There is no dispute nor can there be any to the  principle as settled in the case of State of Haryana & Anr. v.   Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (supra)  that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the  function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of  administrative decision in this regard is very limited.  However,  it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere  with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and  pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable,  unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in  ignorance of material and relevant factors.           In S.B. Vohra’s case (supra), this Court dealing with the  fixation of pay scales of officers of the High Court of Delhi  (Assistant Registrars) has held that the fixation of pay scale is  within the exclusive domain of Chief Justice, subject to  approval of President/Governor of the State and the matter  should either be examined by an expert body or in its absence  by Chief Justice and the Central/State Government should  attend to the suggestions of the Chief Justice with reasonable  promptitude so as to satisfy the test of Article 14 of the  Constitution of India.  Further, it is observed that financial  implications vis-‘-vis effect of grant of a particular scale of pay  may not always be a sufficient reason and differences should  be mutually discussed and tried to be solved.         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 obversvations 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

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 1.1.1977 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.                 Shri Sobha Nambisan, Principal Secretary to  Government, Education Department (Higher Education),  Government of Karnataka, in his latest affidavit dated  6.3.2006 filed in these proceedings has stated that after  1.1.1977, the Government of Karnataka has revised the pay  scales of employees of State Government in 1982, 1987, 1994  and 1999.  From 1.1.1977 to 2006, the dearness allowance,  house rent allowance and other allowances have also been  revised.  The revision of pay scales, dearness allowance, house  rent allowance and other allowances extended to the State  Government employees were also extended to the University  employees from time to time.  Moreover, a large number of  Mysore University employees were promoted in terms of the  time-bound promotion schemes of 10 years, 15 years  and 20  years in terms of the Government Orders issued from time to  time.  The additional financial implications of Rs.60 lakhs will  have to be borne by the State Government.  He has  categorically stated that the revision of pay scales extended to  the employees of State Government time and again will also be  extended to all the University employees.                In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court in  W. A. Nos. 7007-55/1999 dated 8.3.2000 is not legally

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

sustainable.  It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside.           Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the order of  the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.1998 in Writ Petition  Nos.11755/94 CW 3400-3423/93, 37901-37904/92,  35996/92, 3426-3443/93 and 27004/92 is restored and  maintained. The respondents-State of Karnataka and  University of Mysore, both are directed to extend the pay  scales of 1977 and subsequent revisions to the appellants and  pay the difference of monetary benefits to them within four  months from the date of this order.  In the facts and  circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their  own costs.