Full Judgment Text
2023INSC828
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.55295530 OF 2023
B.C. Nagaraj & Anr. … Appellants
versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellants were employed initially as Physical
Instructors in Government Grade Colleges in Karnataka. The
first appellant reached the selection grade pay scale of the
st
University Grants Commission (UGC) on 1 January 1986.
st
The second appellant was granted senior scale of pay on 1
th
January 1986 and selection grade of pay from 13 July 1990.
st
The first appellant was superannuated on 31 January 1998,
st
and the second appellant was superannuated on 31 May
2004. Both, at the time of retirement, were selection grade
Physical Education Directors in the State Government
Signature Not Verified
colleges.
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.09.13
17:16:35 IST
Reason:
Civil Appeal Nos.55295530 of 2023 Page 1 of 7
th
2. On 15 November 1999, the State Government issued
an order revising the pay scale of Teachers, Librarians and
Physical Education Directors in the Government colleges.
Under the said Government order, the benefit of the
University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scales as revised
st
from 1 January 1996 was granted to these three categories
st
of employees with retrospective effect from 1 January 1996.
On the same day, by a separate order, the benefit of the
revised pay scale was granted to Teachers, Librarians and
Directors of Education in the Governmentaided colleges. The
th th
order dated 15 November 1999 was partially modified on 29
July 2000. A circular was issued by the Government of
rd
Karnataka on 23 October 2001 stating that physical
education and library personnel drawing UGC pay scales of
1996 shall not be granted other government benefits under
th
the Government Order dated 15 November 1999.
3. The appellants were denied the benefit of the
th
Government Order dated 15 November 1999. Therefore, the
appellants filed an application before the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, which was rejected. They filed a Writ
Petition before the High Court to challenge the order of the
Tribunal. Writ Petition was dismissed by the impugned
judgment. The impugned judgment relies upon a Government
th
Order dated 4 July 2008, which records that the revised
th
UGC pay scale shall be extended from 27 July 1998
notionally and all financial benefits shall be extended
th
prospectively from 4 July 2008, and no arrears shall be paid.
Civil Appeal Nos.55295530 of 2023 Page 2 of 7
SUBMISSIONS
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
4.
pointed out that one Shri N. Ramesh, who retired as a
Director of Physical Education (selection grade), was granted
th
the benefit of the Government Order dated 15 November
th
1999. He superannuated on 28 February 2006. Later on,
the benefits granted to the said employee were sought to be
recovered from him, and therefore, he filed a Writ Petition
before the High Court. The High Court held that the benefit
of the revised UGC pay scale was rightly extended earlier to
the said employee, and therefore, the High Court, by
th
judgment and order dated 13 February 2009, directed that
all benefits be extended to him. He pointed out that the
Division Bench confirmed the said order in a Writ Appeal filed
by the respondents, and a Special Leave Petition filed against
the orders has been dismissed. Placing reliance on the
documents annexed to the application for permission to file
additional documents (IA No.61474 of 2022), he submitted
that even in 2014, full benefits under the Government Order
th
dated 15 November 1999 were extended to similarly placed
employees.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
State of Karnataka submitted that the orders passed in the
Writ Petition filed by Shri N. Ramesh are per incuriam since
th
the Government Order dated 4 July 2008 which
th
incorporated the clarification issued on 19 October 2006 by
Civil Appeal Nos.55295530 of 2023 Page 3 of 7
UGC was not brought to the notice of the Courts. He pointed
th
out that by a judgment and order dated 29 April 2011
passed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Writ
Appeal no.234 of 2007 (
State of Karnataka & Anr. v.
), the benefit of the Government Order
Puttaswamy and Ors.
th
dated 15 November 1999 was denied to the similarly placed
th
employee on the basis of the order dated 19 October 2006 of
th
UGC. He submitted that the order dated 4 July 2008 issued
by the State Government is in terms of the order of UGC
th
dated 19 October 2006, which lays down that the benefit of
st
revised pay scales with effect from 1 January 1996 shall be
th
extended from 27 July 1998 notionally and all financial
th
benefits shall be extended prospectively from 4 July 2008
and that the employees will not be entitled to arrears. The
learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, submitted
that the view taken by the High Court is fully justified.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
It is not in dispute that the case of Shri N. Ramesh in
6.
Writ Petition No. 5855 of 2008, decided by the learned Single
th
Judge of Karnataka High Court on 13 February 2009, was
similar to the present appellants. The learned Single Judge
held that the said Shri N. Ramesh was entitled to the benefit
st
of the revised UGC pay scale from 1 January 1996 based on
th
the order dated 15 November 1999. Shri N. Ramesh had
th
superannuated on 28 February 2006 as Physical Education
Director from a Government aided college. The judgment of
Civil Appeal Nos.55295530 of 2023 Page 4 of 7
the Karnataka High Court attained finality as a Writ Appeal
preferred against the judgment and the Special Leave Petition
have been dismissed.
th
7. It appears that the Order dated 19 October 2006
th
issued by UGC and the Order dated 4 July 2008 issued by
the State Government were not pointed out to the learned
Single Judge who decided Writ Petition of Shri N. Ramesh on
th
13 February 2009. Even in the appeal before the Division
Bench and in the Special Leave Petition before this Court,
both the orders were not brought to the notice of the Court.
The State Government never applied for the review. It is true
that in the subsequent decision of the Division Bench of the
th
same High Court dated 29 April 2011 in Writ Appeal no. 234
of 2007, the High Court noted the directions issued by the
th
UGC on 19 October 2006 and the Government Order dated
th
4 July 2008 based on the directions of UGC and held that
the Government employees were not entitled to a revised pay
scale with retrospective effect.
8. It must be noted here that the State Government
implemented the order in the case of Shri N. Ramesh. In
another order passed by a learned Single Judge of Karnataka
th
High Court on 30 July 2012, in Writ Petition no. 62679 of
2012 and other connected matters ( Irayya & Ors. v. The
Secretary & Ors. ), a direction was issued in favour of the
similarly placed employees who were entitled to revised UGC
st
pay scales with effect from 1 January 1996 along with all
Civil Appeal Nos.55295530 of 2023 Page 5 of 7
consequential benefits. The order was confirmed by a
th
Division Bench by an order dated 27 August 2013.
Along with the same application, the appellants have
9.
th
produced a copy of the order dated 7 January 2014 in the
case of one Shri K.C. Patil and Shri S.H. Hallur, who were
retired librarians. By the said order, the two librarians, who
were similarly placed as the appellants, were granted the
st
benefit of the revised pay scale from 1 January 1996 along
th
with consequential benefits in terms of the order dated 15
November 1999. Therefore, not only in the case of Shri N.
Ramesh but even thereafter in 2014, to the employees who
were similarly placed as the appellants, the benefits of the
revised UGC pay scale in terms of the Government order
th
dated 15 November 1999 were granted.
10. The State Government ought to have applied for review
of the order of this Court in the case of Shri N. Ramesh.
However, the Government had allowed the said order to
th
become final. Notwithstanding the Government Order of 4
July 2008, as can be seen from the additional documents, the
benefit was granted to the employees who were similarly
th
placed with the appellants even on 7 January 2014. It was a
conscious decision of the State Government to accept the
decision of the High Court in the case of Shri N. Ramesh.
Now, the State Government cannot rely upon the Government
th
Order dated 4 July 2008, which was not pointed out to the
Courts which dealt with the case of Shri N. Ramesh as the
Civil Appeal Nos.55295530 of 2023 Page 6 of 7
State Government accepted the judgment in the case of Shri
N. Ramesh and granted benefits to him of the Government
th
Order dated 15 November 1999. There is no reason why the
appellants should be denied the same relief, especially when
th
even as of 7 January 2014, the same benefit was granted to
the similarly placed employees.
th
Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 9 October
11.
2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. We direct the State
Government to extend the benefits under the Government
th
Order dated 15 November 1999 to the appellants within a
period of three months from today. The appeals are,
accordingly, allowed on the above terms with no order as to
costs.
12. We make it clear that this judgment will apply to all
cases, pending before either the Administrative Tribunal or
High Court, of similarly situated employees in which a similar
relief is claimed. However, this judgment shall not be used to
file new cases by retired employees who have been denied the
benefit and who have not challenged the action till date. No
case, which has been concluded, shall be reopened on the
basis of this judgment.
….…………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
…...…………………...J.
(Pankaj Mithal)
New Delhi;
September 13, 2023.
Civil Appeal Nos.55295530 of 2023 Page 7 of 7