Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 868 (KAR)

R. Muthusamy v. Union of India

2009-11-16

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2009
ORDER 1. This petition is by an Asst. Lecturer in Multi Disciplinary Training Centre, Khadi and Village Industries Commissioner, Bangalore, (i) to quash the order dt. 20.10.2005 Annexure-J of the 1st respondent; (ii) for a mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the upgraded pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 to the post of Asst. Lecturer, held by the petitioner, (iii) payment of arrears of salary with effect from the date of implementation of the fifth Pay Commission, together with all other consequential benefits as set out in the representations dt. 23.3.2006 and 9.11.2006 Annexures-G and H, respectively. 2. Sri. V.S. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the 1st respondent did not agree to the proposal to upgrade the pay scales attached to the post of Asst. Lecturer from Rs.4500-7000 to Rs.5000-8000 by the order dt. 20.10.2005 Annexure-J, nevertheless thereafter the Deputy Director, in-charge of Human Resources Development and Khadi Village and Industries Commission, Mumbai, by letter dt. 6/10.10.2006 enclosed to the statement of objections of the 2nd respondent stated that all matters relating to upgradation including the claim of the petitioner was being examined by the Director of Administration and would submit a proposal to the Ministry for approval and therefore, the petitioner did not have an occasion to question Annexure-J at the earliest Learned counsel contends that Annexure-J order is vitiated on account of denial of justice since no reasons are forthcoming for rejecting the proposal to upgrade the Pay Scale of the Asst. Lecturer, while admitting the upgradation of the Pay Scales for the post of Junior Hindi Translator in the very same pay scale. 3. Learned Central Govt. Standing counsel submits that though no reasons are forthcoming in the order dt. 20.10.2005 Annexure-J, nevertheless the proposal was not conceded. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the letter dt. 20.10.2005 Annexure-J of the 1st respondent apparently does not animate reasons for denying upgradation of the Pay Scales in respect of Asst. lecturers from Rs.4500-7000 to Rs.5000-8000. It is elsewhere said that if reasons are not assigned it tantamounts to denial of justice, since the petitioner would not know what is running in the mind of the authority while denying the request for upgradation. 5. lecturers from Rs.4500-7000 to Rs.5000-8000. It is elsewhere said that if reasons are not assigned it tantamounts to denial of justice, since the petitioner would not know what is running in the mind of the authority while denying the request for upgradation. 5. Suffice it to state that the rejection of the petitioners request and the proposal to upgrade the Pay Scales, by the 1st respondent in the order Annexure-J tantamounts to denial of justice and hence cannot be sustained. 6. The writ petition is allowed. The communication dt. 20.10.2005 Annexure-J in so far as the petitioner is concerned is quashed and the proceeding remitted to the 1st respondent to take a conscious decision and pass orders assigning reasons, findings and conclusions and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any such decision, it is open for him to question the same in an appropriate legal proceedings. 7. Compliance within three months. 8. Petition allowed.