LexRAO SOMASHEKARA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAO SOMASHEKARA AND ORS. A v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 [SUJATA V. MANOHARAND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] B Service Law : " Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1970-Pay scale Disparity in Secondary School Teachers serving in erstwhile State of C Hyderabad-Allotted to the State of Karnataka as on 1.1.1956-Justice Tukol report-Disparity in pay scale eliminated w.ej 1.1.1970-Claim for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 not granted-Held, fixing cut off date as 1.1.1970 is not discriminatory nor arbitrary-State Reorganisation Act, 19561 Constitution of India, 1950 Article 14. D Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32 Petition filed in 1991-Claim for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969-Laches-Applicability of The Petitioners were Secondary School teachers in the State of Karnataka. Before reorganisation certain secondary grade teachers were in E the former State of Hyderabad. After reorganisation, the corresponding posts in former State of Mysore were equated with the posts of allotted personnel. There was disparity in the pay scales of secondary school teachers, which was allowed to continue for nearly 14 years. Karnataka Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1970 based on the report of Justice Tukol came into force on F 1.1.1970 by which the scale of secondary teachers were brought on par with scales of allotted Hyderabad Officers prospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1970. The pay scale disparity for the period from 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 continued. The non-allottee primary school teachers approached the High Court for equating their pay scale. By a compromise arrived at, the scales were increased by 50% prospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1978. Thereafter, Govt. orders dt. 10.8.1979 were issued extending increased scales of pay to all primary school teachers. Some G of the Secondary School teachers filed application before the Tribunal claiming equivalent pay scale for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 but the same was H 125 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A rejected on the ground oflaches. The present petition was filed under Article · 32 by other secondary grade teachers. The contention of the petitioner was that all pay scale grievances of primary school teachers of almost all discriptions arising out of States Reorganisation Act have been favourably removed by the State Govt but the B grievances of secondary school teachers have not been redressed and this was discriminatory. It was further contended that the fixation of 31.12.1969 as the date from which the equality will be maintained was not based on any rational criteria. c The contention of the respondent was that the case of primary teachers cannot be relied upon to raise a plea of discrimination, even if the grievances arise out of the 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 was not permissible for the Court of Judicial review to interfere with such a choice. It was also D contended that the finances of the State do not permit grant of this benefit to the secondary school teachers. Dismissing the writ petition, this Court HELD: 1.1. The cut off date of 1.1.1970 fixed after the report of justice E Tukol Commission in regard to secondary school teachers, is not arbitra.ry nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950. [ 132-D] 1.2. The State Govt had before it the report of the Commission and on that basis it took a decision that the disparity should stand eliminated F 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 whi,:h had to be arrived at by taking all factors into account. It will be difficult for this Court to decide as to from which date the continuance of the existing scales should be treated as discriminatory or the continuance would loose its G temporary character arising out of section 119 of the State Reorganisation Act. (131-H; 132-A) 2. Merely because the grievances of non-allotted primary teachers were remedied even after considerable lapse of time, it cannot be said that the grievances of secondary school teachers-even if it was later should have also H been redressed for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969. The State ofKarnata
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.