TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court restores pay scales for employees, emphasizes compliance with judicial directions</h1> <h3>K.T. Veerappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's Division Bench judgment. It restored the Single Judge's order, directing the State of ... - Issues Involved:1. Revision and implementation of pay scales for non-teaching employees of the University of Mysore.2. Compliance with judicial directions regarding pay scales.3. Discrimination in extending benefits of revised pay scales.4. Legal requirements for amending university statutes for pay revisions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Revision and Implementation of Pay Scales for Non-Teaching Employees of the University of Mysore:The appellants, holding non-teaching posts at the University of Mysore, sought revised pay scales based on the Narayana Pai Pay Commission Report, effective from January 1, 1977. Although the University requested the State Government to extend these pay scales, the Muddappa Committee was appointed to review the matter. Despite recommendations, the University did not implement the revised pay scales, leading to grievances among employees.2. Compliance with Judicial Directions Regarding Pay Scales:The High Court of Karnataka, in earlier writ petitions, directed the University to revise pay scales from January 1, 1977, and consider further revisions. The University constituted a committee, which recommended revised pay scales, but these were not extended to all affected employees, leading to contempt proceedings. The Vice-Chancellor and Registrar complied with the court's directions for some employees but failed to extend benefits to the appellants.3. Discrimination in Extending Benefits of Revised Pay Scales:The appellants argued that similarly placed employees received revised pay scales only because they filed writ petitions, which was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge of the High Court ruled that the University could not discriminate among its employees and directed it to extend the revised pay scales to the appellants as well.4. Legal Requirements for Amending University Statutes for Pay Revisions:The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order, stating that without amending the University statutes, the revised pay scales could not be implemented. The Vice-Chancellor's affidavit confirmed that the University had proposed amendments to the statutes, but the State Government had not approved them. The Supreme Court found this defense unjustified and discriminatory, emphasizing that the benefits should have been extended to all similarly placed employees without unnecessary litigation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's Division Bench judgment. It restored the Single Judge's order, directing the State of Karnataka and the University of Mysore to extend the 1977 pay scales and subsequent revisions to the appellants and pay the difference in monetary benefits within four months. The Court highlighted the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of denying these benefits and emphasized compliance with judicial directions and equitable treatment of all employees.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
