Skip to content


Kodandapani Vs. Director of Text Books and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. No. 12819 of 1977
Judge
Reported inILR1985KAR301
ActsKarnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 - Rule 45
AppellantKodandapani
RespondentDirector of Text Books and anr.
Appellant AdvocateM. Narayanaswamy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.V. Narasimhan, HCGP
Excerpt:
.....1958 - rule 45 -- official temporarily promoted to officiate in higher post entitled to pay of higher post.;irrespective of qualifications if duties and functions performed in the same post, there cannot be a higher pay for the higher qualified holder of the post and a lower pay for the one without that higher qualification. equal pay for equal work is the guiding principle.........the respondents cannot take work in the higher post from the petitioner continuing him in the pay scale attached to the lower post. - karnataka panchayat raj act (14 of 1993) section 15: [ram mohan reddy, j] election petition election of returned candidate was declared as void petitioner alleged to have contested election on the basis of false caste certificate and in fact petitioner belonged to a..........made by the superintendent of text book press, mysore, he was temporarily promoted to officiate as proof examiner on rs.80/-in grade rs.80-150. that pay scale applicable to proof examiner has since been revised. he has continued to work as proof examiner since the date* w.p. no. 12819 of 1977 dated 20th august 1984of the temporary order of promotion. he made several representations to his superiors seeking fixation of his pay scale in accordance with the revision made from time to time. those representations met with limited success. while thanking the authorities for giving him the arrears inrespect of the pay due to him in the post of proof reader division iii, he requested that his pay may be fixed in the grade of proof examiner iind division the post in which he has been working.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chandrakantaraj URS, J.

1. The Petitioner is working as a Proof Examiner in the Government Text Book Press at Mysore. He was originally appointed as Proof Reader Division III. But by an order dated 14-6-1967 made by the Superintendent of Text Book Press, Mysore, he was temporarily promoted to officiate as Proof Examiner on Rs.80/-in Grade Rs.80-150. That pay scale applicable to Proof Examiner has since been revised. He has continued to work as Proof Examiner since the date* W.P. No. 12819 of 1977 Dated 20th August 1984of the temporary order of promotion. He made several representations to his superiors seeking fixation of his pay scale in accordance with the revision made from time to time. Those representations met with limited success. While thanking the authorities for giving him the arrears inrespect of the pay due to him in the post of Proof Reader Division III, he requested that his pay may be fixed in the Grade of Proof Examiner IInd Division the post in which he has been working since 8-6-1967.On that representation he has been issued with an endorsement on 11-8-1977 by which he was refused that revision on the ground that he was not qualified to hold the post of Proof Examiner, IInd Division, and therefore his promotional order made earlier should be construed as only an adhoc arrangement by which he was asked to perform the duties of a higher post but on his own pay scale, Proof Reader Division III. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent-State ofKarnataka and the 1st respondent-Director of Text Books to pay him for the period between 8-6-1967 till date of Petition and thereafter till he continues to hold the post of Proof Examiner II Division, the pay scale attach-ed to that post.

2. The respondents have entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. The facts themselves are not in dispute. However, the emphasis has been laid on the fact that the Petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of a Proof Examiner and therefore it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the pay of a Proof Examiner. This rather appears to be strange. This Court on more than one occasion has held that irrespective of qualifications if duties andfunctions performed in the same post, there cannot be a higher pay for the higher qualified holder of the post and a lower pay for the one without that higher qualification. Equal pay for equal work is the guiding principle. If the petitioner does not have the required qualification to hold the post, he should have been reverted to his substantive post long time ago. The Respondents cannot take work in the higher post from the Petitioner continuing him in the pay scale attached to the lower post. On this short point the Petitioner must succeed notwithstanding the objections filed by the Respondents.

3. In the result, he will be entitled to a mandamus in terms prayed for. The Respondents are directed to pay all his arrears with effect from 1-1-1970 according to the pay scale attached to the post of Proof Examiner IInd Division in which post he has continued from 8-6-1967 till today with all consequential benefits. But it is made clear that in accordance with the conditions laid down in the order of 14-6-1967, the Petitioner has not acquired any right to the present post which he is now holding. That is clarified only in the light of the reservation made in the original order of officiating promotion given to him. At the same time, the Respondents may not revert him solely because of his success in thePetition after having obtained his services without any objection from the Public Service Commission from 1967 till today.

4. The Petition is allowed in the terms above. The rule issued earlier is made absolute and a Writ of Mandamus will issue as prayed for. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //