Karnataka High CourtEmployment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection Of Retired Forest Watcher’s Higher-Pay Claim, Finding No Proof Of Rule Deviation Or Similarly Placed Workers Paid More

SRI M B BASAVAIAHv.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection Of Retired Forest Watcher’s Higher-Pay Claim, Finding No Proof Of Rule Deviation Or Similarly Placed Workers Paid More. SRI M B BASAVAIAH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner established that his pay was wrongly fixed and should be refixed in the scale of Rs. 830–1580

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, found no infirmity in the KSAT’s decision or the underlying order, and dismissed the writ petition.

01Facts

The petitioner worked as a daily wager in the Forest Department and was regularized as a Forest Watcher with effect from 1 January 1990.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–4

He claimed that his pay should have been fixed in the scale of Rs. 830–1580 rather than Rs. 780–1350, and sought correction through representations and proceedings before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT).

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–4

In an earlier application, the KSAT directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to consider the proposal concerning his pay.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–4

The authority rejected the claim by a reasoned order; the KSAT dismissed his subsequent challenge in Application No. 4810/2018 on 20 November 2019.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–4

The petitioner then sought to set aside that decision and the authority’s order.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner established that his pay was wrongly fixed and should be refixed in the scale of Rs. 830–1580

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 4–5

ii.2. Whether the authority’s rejection of the pay-refixation claim, and the KSAT’s decision upholding it, disclosed grounds for interference in the writ petition

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 6–7

03Law Applied

The Court assessed the pay fixation by reference to the applicable Cadre and Recruitment Rules and the record concerning the regularization of casual or daily-rated employees.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 6

It treated proof that the fixation departed from those Rules, or that similarly situated employees had received the claimed benefit, as necessary to support the petitioner’s claim.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 6

The judgment cites no statute or precedent.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 6

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner’s services had been regularized retrospectively from 1 January 1990 in the prescribed scale and that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests had given reasons for rejecting the requested refixation.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 6

The petitioner had not shown that the fixation contravened the Cadre and Recruitment Rules or that comparable employees had been granted the higher scale.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 6

In the absence of that evidence, the Court found no basis to disturb either the authority’s decision or the KSAT’s assessment.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 6

05Holding

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, found no infirmity in the KSAT’s decision or the underlying order, and dismissed the writ petition.

p. 7 · ¶ 7
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI M B BASAVAIAHvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment