Dr. Anand and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The issue raised in these writ petitions lies in a very narrow compass. Therefore, by consent of the learned advocates for the parties to the lis, the cases are taken up for final hearing. The factual matrix of the case, in short, is that the petitioners are the members of Teaching Faculty of respondents 3 to 5 i.e., Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences, Mandya, Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences, Raichur and Vijayanagar Institute of medical Sciences, Bellary. These writ petitions have been filed to quash an order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the 1st respondent, vide Annexure-Q, in so far as giving effect to the revised AICTE pay scales to the petitioners with effect from 01.04.2011 and for a mandamus as against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to extend the benefit of revised AICTE pay scales with effect from 01.01.2006 and to pay the arrears with interest.

W.P. Nos. 11120-11137/2011 filed by the members of the Teaching Faculty in Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bangalore-11, to direct the respondents to revise their pay scales, to bring it on par with the revision by the AICTE as per Notification dated 22.01.2010, with retrospective effect, was allowed by an order dated 15.11.2011 and the writ petitioners were held entitled to pay scales as revised by AICTE as per Notification dated 22.01.2010, along with the benefits, with effect from 22.01.2010. W.A. Nos. 1622/2013 and 2733-2749/2013 filed by the State of Karnataka as against the said order dated 15.11.2011 passed in W.P. Nos. 11120-11137/2011 having been belatedly filed, explanation offered for the delay having been found to be insufficient to condone, the application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed and consequently, the appeals were also dismissed. SLP Nos. 21311-21328/2013 filed by the State of Karnataka were dismissed by the Apex Court on 19.07.2013.

Heard Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Senior advocate for the petitioners, Smt. M.S. Prathima, learned HCGP and Sri Prathap Madhyastha, learned advocate for the respondents and perused the writ petition record.

The Government of Karnataka passed order No. HFW 231 MNC 98, Bangalore, dated 01.06.1999 vide Annexure-F, according sanction for extension of AICTE scales of pay with effect from 01.06.1999 to the Teaching Faculty in the cadres of Lecturers/Assistant Professors/professors/Sr. Professors and Principals of the Government Medical Colleges. In the said order, it was stated that in respect of next revision of pay scales of Medical/Dental Teachers, will be only when the Government of India revises AICTE scales of pay. By an order dated 05.03.2011 vide Annexure-P, the Finance Department agreed for extension of the 2006 revised AICTE scales of pay to the Teaching Faculty of Government and Autonomous Medical and Dental Colleges in the State. The date of effect as could be seen from the said order was 01.04.2011. Considering the Government order as at Annexure-F and AICTE Notification dated 22.01.2010 vide Annexure-K and other recommendations, Government order dated 16.12.2011 vide Annexure-Q was passed, extending the revised AICTE pay scales with effect from 01.04.2011. Thus, the petitioners have been granted the revised AICTE pay scales with effect from 01.04.2011.

The petitioners claim that their cases are similar and in fact identical to that of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11120-11137/2011 decided on 15.11.2011 and thus, they are entitled to similar service benefits at the hands of the respondents. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, statement of objections has been filed on 30.08.2013 and it was submitted that though the Finance Department in its responses dated 05.03.2011 and 28.10.2011, opined that, if the AICTE pay scale is given to the Doctors, there would be excess burden of ` 59.34 Crores on the state exchequer i.e., even by giving effect of AICTE pay scale from 01.04.2011, it was stated that, to encourage Teaching Faculty in the Medical Colleges, the Government passed the order extending AICTE pay scales to the Government and Autonomous Medical Institutions applicable with effect from 01.04.2011.

Having considered all aspects of the matter, I am satisfied that the petitioners being similarly placed like the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11120-11137/2011 decided on 15.11.2011, are entitled to similar monitory benefits. By the said order, the respondents were directed to revise the pay scales of the writ petitioners therein, to bring it on par with the AICTE pay scales, as per the Notification dated 22.01.2010 and pay the consequential benefits with effect from, 22.01.2010. W.A. Nos. 1622/2013 and 2733-2749/2013 were dismissed on the ground of delay on 03.04.2013 and SLP Nos. 21311-21328/2013 have been dismissed on 19.07.2013. The said order reads as follows:-

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant material.

We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

However, the question of law is kept open.

Despite the aforesaid orders, the respondents are not agreeable to extend the AICTE pay scales and consequential benefits to the petitioners herein, with effect from 22.01.2010, on the ground that there is involvement of large financial implications on the state exchequer.

There cannot be any unjust and prejudicial action by the respondents to a section of employees working in similar institutions in the matter of fixation of pay. Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bangalore-11 is similar to respondents 3 to 5. The petitioners'' service conditions are similar to the service conditions of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11120-11137/2011. Hence, the stand taken by the respondents being unjust, patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory cannot be accepted.

Identical question having been considered by this Court in W.P. Nos. 11120-11137/2011 decided on 15.11.2011, following the said order and for the reasons stated therein, more particularly, on account of the dismissal of the Writ Appeals and SLPs. filed by the respondents, noticed supra, these writ petitions are allowed in part. Though the benefit of AICTE pay scales with effect from 01.01.2006 was sought even in W.P. Nos. 11120-11137/2011, the same has been granted with effect from 22.01.2010. Hence, the petitioners cannot be granted the benefit with effect from 01.01.2006. The respondents are directed to revise the pay scales of these writ petitioners, to bring it on par with the AICTE pay scales, as per the Notification dated 22.01.2010, as at Annexure-K and pay to the petitioners, the difference of the amounts/arrears with effect from 22.01.2010, within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order becomes available.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.