Karnataka State Co-op Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. vs Sri. C.R. Krishna Murthy, Sri Anantharam, Smt. B. Shashikala All are Employees of Karnataka State Co-op. Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and The Additional Registrar of Co-op Societies, (I and M)

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents.

The Petitioner is a Co-operative society carrying on banking business. Respondents I to 3 were appointed as Second Division Clerks on temporary basis on 6.11.1995. The managing committee of the Petitioner regularized their services as Second Division Clerks with effect from 22.4.1987 and absorbed them as permanent employees, prospectively. However, Respondents 1 to 3 filed a dispute seeking issuance of directions to consider their temporary service prior to regularization for the purpose of leave, increments, and other benefits including additional basic pay. The same was resisted by the Petitioner and the Petitioner contested the same. Respondent No. 4 however passed an award dated 30.7.2001 directing fixation of pay of the Respondents on par with A.N. Shivalingegowda and others, who were appointed with retrospective effect, though those persons stood on the same footing, as the Petitioners.

However, the Petitioners challenged the said award by way of an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed and it is against the said judgment that the present petition is filed,

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit; that Respondent No. 4 as well as the Tribunal have overlooked the glaring circumstances, in that, by a resolution dated 16.7.1990 Shivalingegowda and others having been extended the benefit of their temporary employment before being regularised and having been afforded a higher pay-scale and the since the Petitioners were regularised to permanent posts earlier, without retrospective effect of the benefits of salary and other pay-scales, the Petitioners could not be said to be aggrieved as the anomaly, if any, is not the making of the Petitioner. It is by virtue of play of circumstances that Shivalingegowda and others were conferred with a larger benefit than the Petitioners.

However, the Tribunal having placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. S. Bhaskar, which did not apply to the facts of the present ease, has proceeded to hold that there was a disparity which was arbitrary and therefore, that the Respondents should be placed on par with Shivalingegowda and others, who were granted a larger salary and since they are of the same cadre. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that even if the salaries of the Respondents are made on par with Shivalingegowda and others, the services of Shivalingegowda and others having been regularised by virtue of a resolution dated 16.7.1990 on certain terms, could not be enforced in toto insofar as the Respondents are concerned with retrospective effect. It may at best enable the Respondents to claim salaries on par with Shivalingegowda and others and as far as the extension of other benefits which they may be entitled cannot be extended to the Respondents since their services have been regularised on terms and conditions as prevailing in the year 1987. This argument of the counsel would carry substance. Though on the basis of it, it appears that there is disparity in the service conditions of the Respondents and Shivalingegowda and others, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is by virtue of prevailing circumstance that such benefits have been extended to the Respondents and Shivalingegowda and others who are of the same cadre and therefore would rest his case to contend that in any event, the Respondents and others cannot be put on par on all parameters and therefore would submit that the blanket orders of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies as well the Tribunal extending the benefits in toto to the Respondents, as have been afforded to others by virtue of the resolution dated 16.7.1990, would therefore result in an illegal benefit being conferred on the Respondents.

Having regard to the above contentions and the circumstances which are disputed by the Respondents herein, who seek to justify the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, it is apparent that there is a glaring anomaly insofar as the pay-scales are concerned. Since the Respondents and Shivalingegowda and others are juniors to the present Respondents, it is necessary that their pay-scales be made on par with each other, in order that there is no apparent arbitrariness and the principle of ''equal pay for equal work'' be maintained without necessarily extending all other benefits which may by virtue of the resolution dated 16.7.1990 may have been afforded to Shivalingegowda and others.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed in part. The judgment of the Tribunal and the award of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies is modified to hold that the Respondents herein shall be paid the same scale of pay as afforded to Shivalingegowda and others by virtue of the resolution dated 16.7.1990, while making it clear that all other benefits which may have been extended to those persons need not necessarily be applied to the Respondents who are regularised in service by an order dated 22.4.1987. The disparity in pay-scales alone be rectified by the Respondents and the Respondents shall be paid all such arrears that may accrue on account of the said anomaly being corrected within a period of six months, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.