Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 181 (KAR)

NAGARAJ K. R. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1978-07-04

M.RAMA JOIS

body1978
( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are employees of various Marketing Committees functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, are questioning the validity of sub- rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1968, in which the power is conferred on the Chief marketing Officer to approve the budget prepared by the Marketing Committee, inter alia, which includes the pay-scale of the employees of the marketing Committee. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows : - (i) Petitioners 1 and 2 are Market Supervisors and Licence Inspectors on the establishment of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, kadur. They are on the pay scale of Rs. 90-200. They requested the market committee to revise theri pay-scale to Rs. 130-290 on the ground that their work-load had increased considerably. The market committee passed a resolution on 30th March 1973 acceding to the request of the aforesaid two petittioners. But the Chief Marketing Officer refused to approve the revised pay-scale. The petitioners presented W. P. No. 3126 of 1973 praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to the market committee to accord the benefit of the revised pay-scale of Rs. 130-290 with effect from March 1973. In the said writ petition, this Court held that under Section 61 of the act, the market committee was the exclusive authority to make appointments of its staff as also to extend the pay-scales to its employees. But at the same time this Court came to the conclusion that unless the pay-scales are approved having been included in the budget of the market committee under Sub-rule (6) Rule 64 of the Rules, by the Chief Marketing Officer, the market committee cannot Sanction revised pay-scales of pay. In view of the said conclusion the relief was not granted. (ii) Petitioners 3, 4 and 5 are employees of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Comrrtittee of Haveri. They were also in the pay scale of rs. 90-200 which was later revised to Rs. 120-240. They requested the market committee to revise their pay-scale to R9. 175-450. In this case also, the Chief Marketing Officer did not approve the pay-scale. They filed WP. 3654 of 1973. The said writ petition was also decided on similar lines as was done in WP. 3126 of 1973. 90-200 which was later revised to Rs. 120-240. They requested the market committee to revise their pay-scale to R9. 175-450. In this case also, the Chief Marketing Officer did not approve the pay-scale. They filed WP. 3654 of 1973. The said writ petition was also decided on similar lines as was done in WP. 3126 of 1973. (iii) Petitioners 6, 7 arid 8 are employees of the Agricultural Produce marketing Committee, Nandagad. They were in the pay-scale of Rs. 120- 240. They requested the market committee to revise their play-scale to rs. 175-450. By a resolution dated 22-10-1973 the said Committee resolved to accord the revised pay-scale of Rs. 175-450 to these petitioners. In this case also, the Chief Marketing Officer disagreed to extend the revised pay- scale. These petitioners also approached this Court by filing WPs. 1614 to 1616 of 1974. The said writ petitions were decided on 4-12-1974 on the same lines as was done in WP. 3126 of 1973. ( 3 ) HAVING failed in the earlier writ petitions, the petitioners have joined to file this writ petition. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of sub-rule 6 of Rule 64 of the Rules on the ground that it is repugnant to the provisions of Section 61 of the Act. Therefore the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether sub-rule (8) of Rule 64 of the Rules is repugnant to the provisions of section 61 of the Act. ( 4 ) SRI B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, raised two preliminary objections, namely, (r) TEe petitions are barred by principles of res-judicata for the reason that the petitioners should have challenged the validity of sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Rules in the earlier writ petitions if they wanted to do so and having not done so, they cannot reagitate the matter in view of principles of constructive res judicate; and (2) as the writ petition is a joint petition, filed by 8 petitioners and belonging to three different committees, the same is not maintainable. Apart from the preliminary objection, he also submitted that sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Rules is not repugnant to Sec. 61 of the Act. Apart from the preliminary objection, he also submitted that sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Rules is not repugnant to Sec. 61 of the Act. ( 5 ) THOUGH the two preliminary objections raised on, behalf of the respondents appear to be good, I propose to decide the writ petition on the merits of the case itself. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that Sec. 61 of the Act confers absolute power on the market committee to make appointments which includes the power to fix the pay-scales and, therefore, any rule framed by the rule making authority which takes away or abridges the power of the market committee conferred under Sec. 61 of the Act has to be declared invalid being repugnant to the provisions of Sec. 61 of the Act. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioners, it is necessary to set out the provisions of Sec. 61 of the Act, which reads thus:" 61. Power of Market Committee to employ other Staff.- (1) Subject to such conditions as may be provided in the rules, the market committee may employ such officers and servants other than thoge specified under Sec. 58, as may be necessary for the management and regulation of the market and for transacting the affairs of the market committee and may pay such officers and servants such salaries as the market committee may determine. (2) The market committee may also in the case of any of its officers and servants appointed under sub-sec. (1) provide for them such leave, allowances, pension and gratuities as may be provided in the bye-laws and may contribute to any provident, fund which may be established for the benefit of such officers and servants. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in, sub-sec. (1) and (2) the market committee may create temporary posts for a period not exceeding four months and make appointments thereto subject to the condition that the maximum monthly pay of such posts shall not exceed one hundred and twenty rupees. "sec. 61 no doubt confers power on the market committee to appoint such officers or servants as may be necessary for the management and regulation of the market and for transacting the affairs of the market committee and may pay such officers and servants such salary as the market committee may determine, but the opening words of sub-sec. "sec. 61 no doubt confers power on the market committee to appoint such officers or servants as may be necessary for the management and regulation of the market and for transacting the affairs of the market committee and may pay such officers and servants such salary as the market committee may determine, but the opening words of sub-sec. 1 of Sec. 61 provides that the power so conferred on the market committee is subject to such conditions as may be provided under the Rules. Therefore, if Rules are fram regulating as to how the pay-scales of the officers and servants of the market committees are to be fixed or revised, the power of appointment of the market committee including the payment of pay-scale is subject to the conditions so prescrbied under the Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the power conferred under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 61 of tha Act in respect of employing the officers and servants and fixing their pay-scale is absolute. The power has to be exercised in accordance with the Rules. The above conclusion also receives support from sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 61 of the Act. According to the said sub-sec. , notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-secs (1) and (2) of Sec. 61 of the Act, the market committee may create temporary posts for not exceeding four months and make appointments thereto subject to the condition that the maximum monthly pay of such post shall not exceed Rs. 120. The effect of the said provisions is that the market committee has no power to create a post even for a temporary period if the post were to carry a pay exceeding Rs. 120, acceptance of the contention of the petitioner that under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 61 of the Act, the power of the market committee to employ officers and servants and fix their pay-scale is absolute, will run counter to the provisions of sub-sec. 3 of Sec. 61 of the Act. Sub-rule 6 of Rule 64 of the rules, the validity of which is questioned in this writ petition, reads as follows :"64. 61 of the Act, the power of the market committee to employ officers and servants and fix their pay-scale is absolute, will run counter to the provisions of sub-sec. 3 of Sec. 61 of the Act. Sub-rule 6 of Rule 64 of the rules, the validity of which is questioned in this writ petition, reads as follows :"64. Submission of Budget- (1) - - (2) - - - (3) - - (4) - - (5) - - (6) No expenditure shall be incurred unless the same is covered by budget grant or it can be met by reappropriation from the s'avings under other heads or by supplementary grant from the available reserve approved by the Chief Marketing Officer or any officer authorised by him. "the above rule regulates "all expenditure by any market committee which necessarily includes the fixing of pay-scales or revised pay-scales in respect of officers and servants which the market committee w'ants to employ in exercise of its power under sub-sec. 1 of Sec. 61 of the Act. ( 7 ) THEREFORE the first step that the market committee has to take while granting new pay-scales is to include the number of posts and the pay-scale proposed to be given in the budget. If the budget is approved by the Chief Marketing Officer, then the market committee has the power to appoint any person in respect of the post included in the budget and on the pay-scale specified in the budget and the Chief Marketing Officer has no further power to interfere with the discretion of the market committee in making appointment or in extending the pay-scale. As the power under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 61 of the Act is subject to such conditions as may be provided in the Rules, the power of the market committee under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 61 of the Act can be exercised only subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Rules. Therefore, far from there being any repugnancy between sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Rules and sec. 61 of the Act, the above rule is in conformity with the opening words of Sec. 61 of the Act. Therefore, far from there being any repugnancy between sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Rules and sec. 61 of the Act, the above rule is in conformity with the opening words of Sec. 61 of the Act. ( 8 ) IN view of the above conclusions I hold that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners that sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Rules is repugnant to Sec. 61 of the Act. ( 9 ) IN view of my conclusion on the only contention urged in the writ petition, it is unnecessary for me to express any final opinion on the two preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondents. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, Rule is discharged. The writ petition is dismissed. NO costs. --- *** --- .